Background Timing and adequacy of peritoneal source control are the most important pillars in the management of patients with acute peritonitis. Therefore, early prognostic evaluation of acute peritonitis is paramount to assess the severity and establish a prompt and appropriate treatment. The objectives of this study were to identify clinical and laboratory predictors for in-hospital mortality in patients with acute peritonitis and to develop a warning score system, based on easily recognizable and assessable variables, globally accepted. Methods This worldwide multicentre observational study included 153 surgical departments across 56 countries over a 4-month study period between February 1, 2018, and May 31, 2018. Results A total of 3137 patients were included, with 1815 (57.9%) men and 1322 (42.1%) women, with a median age of 47 years (interquartile range [IQR] 28–66). The overall in-hospital mortality rate was 8.9%, with a median length of stay of 6 days (IQR 4–10). Using multivariable logistic regression, independent variables associated with in-hospital mortality were identified: age > 80 years, malignancy, severe cardiovascular disease, severe chronic kidney disease, respiratory rate ≥ 22 breaths/min, systolic blood pressure < 100 mmHg, AVPU responsiveness scale (voice and unresponsive), blood oxygen saturation level (SpO 2 ) < 90% in air, platelet count < 50,000 cells/mm3, and lactate > 4 mmol/l. These variables were used to create the PIPAS Severity Score, a bedside early warning score for patients with acute peritonitis. The overall mortality was 2.9% for patients who had scores of 0–1, 22.7% for those who had scores of 2–3, 46.8% for those who had scores of 4–5, and 86.7% for those who have scores of 7–8. Conclusions The simple PIPAS Severity Score can be used on a global level and can help clinicians to identify patients at high risk for treatment failure and mortality.

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.

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions.

No abstract

Background: This report reviews our clinical experience with 55 cases of traumatic diaphragmatic hernia at a Brazilian university hospital. Traumatic diaphragmatic hernia is an uncommon injury and presents diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Occasionally, it is missed in trauma patients and is usually associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This analysis aimed to improve the diagnostic outcomes of trauma patient care. Methods: Retrospective design analysis of database records of trauma patients at HC-Unicamp were performed to investigate incidence, trauma mechanism, diagnosis, herniated organs, associated injuries, trauma score, morbidity and mortality. Results: Fifty-five patients were analysed. Blunt trauma was two-fold more frequent than penetrating trauma and was associated with high-grade injury; motor vehicle collision was the most common mechanism. Left-sided hernia was four-fold more frequent than that on the right side, although critical injuries were more frequently associated with the right side. The stomach was the most herniated organ in both trauma mechanisms. Preoperative diagnosis was mostly performed using chest radiography (55%). Postoperative diagnosis was mostly performed via laparotomy rather than laparoscopy. Associated injuries were observed in 43 patients (78%) and the mortality rate was 20% for both the sides. Conclusion: Isolated injuries are rare, and the presence of associated injuries increases morbidity and mortality. Chest radiography in the trauma bay is useful as an initial examination, although it is not suitable for use as a definitive method. Despite the use of laparoscopy in a few cases, laparotomy is the most common approach.