Background Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. Methods A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. Results Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-todecision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. and Other Interventional Techniques Disclaimer This clinical practice guideline has been developed under the auspice of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). It is intended to be used primarily by health professionals (e.g. surgeons, anesthetists, physicians) and to assist in making informed clinical decisions on diagnostic measures and therapeutic management. It is also intended to inform individual practice of allied health professionals (e.g. surgical nurses, dietitians, physical rehabilitation therapists, psychologists); to inform strategic planning and resource management by healthcare authorities (e.g. regional and national authorities, healthcare institutions, hospital administration authorities); and to inform patients wishing to obtain an overview of the condition of interest and its management. The use of recommendations contained herein must be informed by supporting evidence accompanying each recommendation and by research evidence that might not have been published by the time of writing the present document. Users must thus base their actions informed by newly published evidence at any given point Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (

Background Few surgical studies have provided adjusted comparative postoperative outcome data among contemporary patients with and without COVID-19 infection and patients treated before the pandemic. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of performing emergency surgery in patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection. Methods Patients who underwent emergency general and gastrointestinal surgery from March to June 2020, and from March to June 2019 in 25 Spanish hospitals were included in a retrospective study (COVID-CIR). The main outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and failure to rescue (mortality among patients who developed complications). Propensity score-matched comparisons were performed between patients who were positive and those who were negative for COVID-19; and between COVID-19-negative cohorts before and during the pandemic. Results Some 5307 patients were included in the study (183 COVID-19-positive and 2132 COVID-19-negative during pandemic; 2992 treated before pandemic). During the pandemic, patients with COVID-19 infection had greater 30-day mortality than those without (12.6 versus 4.6 per cent), but this difference was not statistically significant after propensity score matching (odds ratio (OR) 1.58, 95 per cent c.i. 0.88 to 2.74). Those positive for COVID-19 had more complications (41.5 versus 23.9 per cent; OR 1.61, 1.11 to 2.33) and a higher likelihood of failure to rescue (30.3 versus 19.3 per cent; OR 1.10, 0.57 to 2.12). Patients who were negative for COVID-19 during the pandemic had similar rates of 30-day mortality (4.6 versus 3.2 per cent; OR 1.35, 0.98 to 1.86) and complications (23.9 versus 25.2 per cent; OR 0.89, 0.77 to 1.02), but a greater likelihood of failure to rescue (19.3 versus 12.9 per cent; OR 1.56, 95 per cent 1.10 to 2.19) than prepandemic controls. Conclusion Patients with COVID-19 infection undergoing emergency general and gastrointestinal surgery had worse postoperative outcomes than contemporary patients without COVID-19. COVID-19-negative patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic had a likelihood of greater failure-to-rescue than prepandemic controls.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons’ knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society’s website and Twitter profile. Results 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI.

(1) Background: The current criteria for defining good or bad responders to bariatric surgery based on the percentage of weight loss do not properly reflect the therapeutic impact of the main bariatric techniques. At present there is an urgent need to fill this gap and provide scientific evidence that better define the success or failure of bariatric surgery in the long term. (2) Methods: This is a retrospective database study of a prospective cohort with 5-year follow-up. We established the success or failure of bariatric surgery in terms of weight loss according to a selected criterion: (1) Halverson and Koehler; (2) Reinhold modified by Christou; (3) Biron; (4) TWL > 20%; (5) percentage of changeable weight (AWL > 35%). We analyzed sensitivity and specificity for successful weight loss. (3) Results: 223 (38.7%) patients underwent sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and 353 (61.2%) underwent laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGBP). The success rates at 5 years are: EWL > 50% 464 (80%), Reinhold 436 (75.6%), Biron 530 (92%), TWL > 20% 493 (85.5%), AWL < 35% 419 (72.7); ≥50%EWL and alterable weight loss AWL > 35 were the most adequate criteria as their specificities and sensibility were far above >80%. (4) Conclusions: The present study shows how the different definitions of success or failure are inconsistent in relation to the outcomes of BS. However, there are some criteria that associate statistically significant differences for the resolution of comorbidities and show the highest sensitivity and specificity rates.