Purpose The aim of this paper is to investigate the effect of COVID-19 pandemic on general surgical emergencies as well as analyzing the effectiveness of measures taken in reducing the incidence of COVID-19 in patients and healthcare professionals. Methods Patients who underwent emergency surgery between the pandemic period of March 14th to May 15th 2020 and within the same period from the previous year were reviewed retrospectively. COVID-19 incidence in patients and health professionals working in the general surgery department during these periods was questioned. Results Demographic data were similar between the two time periods. The number of patients who underwent surgery in the pandemic group ( n = 103) was lower than the control group ( n = 252). There was a 59.1% reduction in emergency surgeries. The biggest decreases were the admissions of incarcerated hernia, uncomplicated appendicitis and acute cholecystitis (92%, 81.3%, 47.3%, respectively). During the pandemic, an increase was of patient rates who underwent surgery for complicated appendicitis and AMIO ( p = 0.001, p = 0.019, respectively). The rate of mortality was higher in patients who underwent emergency surgery during pandemic ( p = 0.049). The results of COVID-19 screening were positive in 6 (6/103, 5.82%) patients undergoing emergency surgery. None of the doctors working in the ward were infected with COVID-19 infection (0/20). The screening tests were positive in only two nurses working on the ward (2/24, 8.33%). Conclusion In this and similar pandemics, we suggest that a new algorithm is necessary to approach emergencies and the results of this study can contribute to that end.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 commenced in Wuhan China in 2019 and soon spread worldwide. SARS-CoV-2 enters the cell by binding to the ACE II receptor and begins viral replication. The effects and clinical findings of SARS-CoV-2 on the liver, kidney, heart, gastrointestinal (GI) system and especially lungs have been widely discussed. However, the effects on the pancreas-another organ that also expresses ACE II-have not been studied. Methods: This work prospectively evaluated data from 316 patients who were admitted with a diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. The patients were categorized into three according to the severity of pneumonia (mild, severe, critical). Demographic data, rate of pancreatitis, biochemical parameters, and radiological images from each group were analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups and outcomes were compared: COVID-19 patients with acute pancreatitis (Group P) and without acute pancreatitis (Group C). Results: The median age was 54 (18-87), and the median age for patients with acute pancreatitis was 55 (26-84). As an expected finding, we found a positive correlation between advanced age and mortality (p ¼ 0.0003). 12.6% of the patients had acute pancreatitis. While pancreatitis was not seen in patients on mild status, the rate of pancreatitis was 32.5% in critical patients. Hospitalization and mortality rates were higher in patients with COVID-19 accompanied by acute pancreatitis (p ¼ 0.0038 and p < 0.0001, respectively). C-Reactive Protein (CRP) and ferritin were significantly higher in those who had pancreatitis (p < 0.0001). D-Dimer and procalcitonin levels had only a small difference (p ¼ 0.1127 and p ¼ 0.3403, respectively) Conclusion: Acute pancreatitis alone is a clinical condition that can lead to mortality and may be one of the reasons for the exaggerated immune response developing in the progression of COVID-19. Our results point out that the presence of pancreatic damage triggered by SARS-CoV-2 can deteriorate the clinical condition of patients and the mortality rate may increase in these patients.

The authors report four patients with intracranial hydatic cysts. One patient had a pontine lesion which was punctured and aspirated and the cyst wall removed with a satisfactory outcome. The second patient had multiple cysts which was comparable to meningeomatosis. She had a rapidly deteriorating neurologic condition which proved to be fatal in spite of two consecutive surgical interventions. The third patient had nine lesions although only six were evident on the MRI. All of the cysts were removed, while two cysts ruptured. Multiple paracardial cysts of this patient were surgically removed shortly after the craniotomy. The last patient, again with multiple intracranial hydatid cysts had safe, total removal of all cysts. The first postoperative control CT raised the possibility of recurrence since the CT was highly suggestive of a hydatid cyst. However, this was not confirmed in the follow-up CT examination. Problems and the solutions of management are discussed.

PurposeLaparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is usually performed under the general anesthesia (GA). Aim of the study is to investigate the availability, safety and side effects of combined spinal/epidural anesthesia (CSEA) and comparison it with GA for LC.MethodsForty-nine patients who have a LC plan were included into the study. The patients were randomly divided into GA (n = 25) and CSEA (n = 24) groups. Intraoperative and postoperative adverse events, postoperative pain levels were compared between groups.ResultsAnesthesia procedures and surgeries for all patients were successfully completed. After the organization of pneumoperitoneum in CSEA group, 3 patients suffered from shoulder pain (12.5%) and 4 patients suffered from abdominal discomfort (16.6%). All these complaints were recovered with IV fentanyl administration. Only 1 patient developed hypotension which is recovered with fluid replacement and no need to use vasopressor treatment. Postoperative shoulder pain was significantly less observed in CSEA group (25% vs. 60%). Incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was less observed in CSEA group but not statistically significant (4.2% vs. 20%). In the group of CSEA, 3 patients suffered from urinary retention (12.5%) and 2 patients suffered from spinal headache (8.3%). All postoperative pain parameters except 6th hour, were less observed in CSEA group, less VAS scores and less need to analgesic treatment in CSEA group comparing with GA group.ConclusionCSEA can be used safely for laparoscopic cholecystectomies. Less postoperative surgical field pain, shoulder pain and PONV are the advantages of CSEA compared to GA.

BackgroundLaparoscopic total extraperitoneal (TEP) inguinal hernia repair is a well-known approach to inguinal hernia repair that is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA). To date, no reports compare the efficacy of spinal anesthesia (SA) with that of GA for laparoscopic hernia repairs. The purpose of this study was to compare the surgical outcome of TEP inguinal hernia repair performed when the patient was treated under SA with that performed under GA.Materials and methodsBetween July 2015 and July 2016, 50 patients were prospectively randomized to either the GA TEP group (Group I) or the SA TEP group (Group II). Propofol, fentanyl, rocuronium, sevoflurane, and tracheal intubation were used for GA. Hyperbaric bupivacaine (15 mg) and fentanyl (10 µg) were used for SA to achieve a sensorial level of T3. Intraoperative events related to SA, operative and anesthesia times, postoperative complications, and pain scores were recorded. Each patient was asked to evaluate the anesthetic technique by using a direct questionnaire filled in 3 months after the operation.ResultsAll the procedures were completed by the allocated method of anesthesia as there were no conversions from SA to GA. Pain was significantly less for 1 h (P<0.0001) and 4 h (P=0.002) after the procedure for the SA and GA groups, respectively. There was no difference between the two groups regarding complications, hospital stay, recovery, or surgery time. Generally, patients were more satisfied with SA than GA (P<0.020).ConclusionTEP inguinal hernia repair can be safely performed under SA, and SA was associated with less postoperative pain, better recovery, and better patient satisfaction than GA.

Objective:Endometriosis is seen in women during their reproductive period, where stromal tissue and functional endometrial glands of the uterus are observed outside the uterine cavity. In this study, we aimed to identify the clinical characteristics of our patients who underwent surgery with scar endometriosis and to discuss the surgical results in light of the literature.Materials and Methods:A total of 24 patients who underwent surgery and diagnosed as having endometriosis as the result of a pathologic examination were retrospectively evaluated.Results:The mean age of the patients was 31 years. Thirteen presented to general surgery and 11 presented to gynecology outpatient clinics. The pain was cyclical in 19 patients. There was history of cesarean section in 9 patients, twice in 12, and 3 times in three patients. The mean diameter was 39.1 mm on ultrasound, and 37.5 mm on magnetic resonance imaging. Endometriosis was on the left side of the incisions in 13, whereas it was on the right in 11. The mean weight of the lesions was 61.6 grams.Conclusion:The occurrence of endometriosis is supported by the iatrogenic implantation theory. In the event of a mass in the abdominal wall, previous obstetric and gynecologic operations and a history of a painful mass during menstruation periods must be questioned. In the treatment of scar endometriosis, excision is required by obtaining secure margins. If diagnosis can be established preoperatively, unnecessary surgeries can prevented.

No abstract

No abstract