Background: Surgical disease is inadequately addressed globally, and emergency conditions requiring surgery contribute substantially to the global disease burden.Methods: This was a review of studies that contributed to define the population-based health burden of emergency surgical conditions (excluding trauma and obstetrics) and the status of available capacity to address this burden. Further data were retrieved from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010 and the University of Washington's Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation online data. Results:In the index year of 2010, there were 896 000 deaths, 20 million years of life lost and 25 million disability-adjusted life-years from 11 emergency general surgical conditions reported individually in the Global Burden of Disease Study. The most common cause of death was complicated peptic ulcer disease, followed by aortic aneurysm, bowel obstruction, biliary disease, mesenteric ischaemia, peripheral vascular disease, abscess and soft tissue infections, and appendicitis. The mortality rate was higher in high-income countries (HICs) than in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) (24·3 versus 10·6 deaths per 100 000 inhabitants respectively), primarily owing to a higher rate of vascular disease in HICs. However, because of the much larger population, 70 per cent of deaths occurred in LMICs. Deaths from vascular disease rose from 15 to 25 per cent of surgical emergency-related deaths in LMICs (from 1990 to 2010). Surgical capacity to address this burden is suboptimal in LMICs, with fewer than one operating theatre per 100 000 inhabitants in many LMICs, whereas some HICs have more than 14 per 100 000 inhabitants. Conclusion:The global burden of surgical emergencies is described insufficiently. The bare estimates indicate a tremendous health burden. LMICs carry the majority of emergency conditions; in these countries the pattern of surgical disease is changing and capacity to deal with the problem is inadequate. The data presented in this study will be useful for both the surgical and public health communities to plan a more adequate response.

Background Surgical smoke is a well-recognized hazard in the operating room. At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies quickly published guidelines recommending avoiding laparoscopy or to consider open surgery because of the fear of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 through surgical smoke or aerosol. This narrative review of the literature aimed to determine whether there are any differences in the creation of surgical smoke/aerosol between laparoscopy and laparotomy and if laparoscopy may be safer than laparotomy. Methods A literature search was performed using the Pubmed, Embase and Google scholar search engines, as well as manual search of the major journals with specific COVID-19 sections for ahead-of-print publications. Results Of 1098 identified articles, we critically appraised 50. Surgical smoke created by electrosurgical and ultrasonic devices has the same composition both in laparoscopy and laparotomy. SARS-CoV-2 has never been found in surgical smoke and there is currently no data to support its virulence if ever it could be transmitted through surgical smoke/aerosol. Conclusion If laparoscopy is performed in a closed cavity enabling containment of surgical smoke/aerosol, and proper evacuation of smoke with simple measures is respected, and as long as laparoscopy is not contraindicated, we believe that this surgical approach may be safer for the operating team while the patient has the benefits of minimally invasive surgery. Evidence-based research in this field is needed for definitive determination of safety. Keywords COVID-19 • SARS-CoV-2 • Laparoscopy • Risk • Viral transmission • Safety Surgical smoke may harbor particulates of blood fragments, viable cellular material, bacteria and viruses, as well as toxic gas vapors, all of which can negatively affect surgical staff [1]. Consequently, it was feared that surgical smoke may contain viable SARS-CoV-2 [2-4] and all too quickly, major surgical learned societies published guidelines, statements and recommendations, not only to stop elective surgery but favoring laparotomy over laparoscopy [5-7]. In turn, societies [8] and surgeons [9, 10] dedicated to Minimally Invasive Surgery challenged these statements, underscoring that these risks were largely overestimated and unjustified because of the low quality of evidence [9, 10]. Even if other societies [11] progressively nuanced their initial recommendations and statements, they no longer take any clear stand for or against, only to generate more confusion among surgeons on whether laparotomy or laparoscopy was more appropriate during the pandemic. In this narrative review, we aimed to critically appraise the literature with regard to the quandary of surgical smoke

Laparoscopic partial splenectomy is safe for patients with localized benign or malignant disease of the spleen.

No abstract

In selected patients undergoing cholecystectomy for benign gallbladder disease, SPC is non-inferior to MPC in terms of safety but it entails a longer operative time. Possible concerns about a higher risk of incisional hernia following SPC do not appear to be justified. Patient satisfaction with aesthetic results was greater after SPC than after MPC.

No abstract

BackgroundAntimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) have been promoted to optimize antimicrobial usage and patient outcomes, and to reduce the emergence of antimicrobial-resistant organisms. However, the best strategies for an ASP are not definitively established and are likely to vary based on local culture, policy, and routine clinical practice, and probably limited resources in middle-income countries. The aim of this study is to evaluate structures and resources of antimicrobial stewardship teams (ASTs) in surgical departments from different regions of the world.MethodsA cross-sectional web-based survey was conducted in 2016 on 173 physicians who participated in the AGORA (Antimicrobials: A Global Alliance for Optimizing their Rational Use in Intra-Abdominal Infections) project and on 658 international experts in the fields of ASPs, infection control, and infections in surgery.ResultsThe response rate was 19.4%. One hundred fifty-six (98.7%) participants stated their hospital had a multidisciplinary AST. The median number of physicians working inside the team was five [interquartile range 4–6]. An infectious disease specialist, a microbiologist and an infection control specialist were, respectively, present in 80.1, 76.3, and 67.9% of the ASTs. A surgeon was a component in 59.0% of cases and was significantly more likely to be present in university hospitals (89.5%, p < 0.05) compared to community teaching (83.3%) and community hospitals (66.7%). Protocols for pre-operative prophylaxis and for antimicrobial treatment of surgical infections were respectively implemented in 96.2 and 82.3% of the hospitals. The majority of the surgical departments implemented both persuasive and restrictive interventions (72.8%). The most common types of interventions in surgical departments were dissemination of educational materials (62.5%), expert approval (61.0%), audit and feedback (55.1%), educational outreach (53.7%), and compulsory order forms (51.5%).ConclusionThe survey showed a heterogeneous organization of ASPs worldwide, demonstrating the necessity of a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach in the battle against antimicrobial resistance in surgical infections, and the importance of educational efforts towards this goal.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13017-017-0145-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract