Emergency general abdominal surgery (EGS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Timely intervention and effective triage systems are crucial to improve outcomes. This study evaluates the impact of surgeons' prioritization and adherence to a triage protocol on postoperative outcomes.

Single-center retrospective analysis of patients undergoing EGS at Bern University Hospital from 03/2015-12/2022. Patients were categorized into four triage levels based on the urgency of surgery (level 1 within 1 h, level 2 within 6 h, level 3 within 12 h, and level 4 within 24 h). "Protocol violation" was defined in cases where the delay to surgery exceeded the triage level. Primary endpoint included complications according to Clavien-Dindo classification in patients with versus without "protocol violation".

A total of 1'947 patients were included. The mean overall delay from admission to surgery was in triage level 1 69.5 ± 127.5 min., in triage level 2 206.5 ± 178.0 min., in triage level 3 350.6 ± 282.6 min. and in triage level 4 693.4 ± 354.8 min.. Triage levels 1 and 2 correlated significantly with increased complication rates compared to triage level 3 and 4 (64% vs. 43% vs. 11% vs. 10%, p < 0.001). Similarly, mortality rates decreased significantly from triage level 1 through 4 (26% vs. 7% vs. 1% vs. 2%, p < 0.001). "Protocol violation" occurred in a total of 13% of patients with decreasing proportions from triage level 1 to 4 (37% vs. 13% vs. 12% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). "Protocol violation" did not statistically affect overall morbidity and mortality in most of the diagnoses. In patients with intestinal ischemia or abdominal abscesses, mortality was significantly higher in patients with "protocol violation". In contrast, in patients suffering from acute inguinal hernias or gastrointestinal bleeding, morbidity was significantly higher in patients without "protocol violation". A significantly shorter hospital length of stay (HLOS) was shown in triage level 2 and triage level 3 when patients were treated without "protocol violation" (8.6 ± 10.0 days vs. 13.5 ± 17.3 days, p = 0.022 and 5.3 ± 8.7 days vs. 6.4 ± 6.7 days, p < 0.001, respectively).

Surgeons' triage levels significantly correlated with mortality and morbidity. Moreover, "protocol violation" resulted in higher mortality in patients suffering from mesenteric ischemia and abdominal abscesses and resulted in prolonged HLOS. Further incorporating objective parameters into triage decisions in the EGS population may enhance prioritization accuracy, patient safety and resource utilization.

Since the last meeting of the German Medical Association in May 2024, there has been a discussion in Germany about the shortening of primary specialty training and a transfer of the contents of additional supra-specialty training to the existing primary specialty training. This also affects intensive care medicine, with the prospect of creating a subspecialty for subspecialties in intensive care medicine (e.g., a specialty in surgical intensive care medicine). We consider the associated reduction of general specialty-specific contents to be inappropriate for several reasons. Knowledge of the specialty-specific trigger factors (foci) of a critical illness (organ dysfunction) as well as knowledge of the respective trigger factor-specific symptoms, diagnostics and pathways for initiating a causal treatment, are decisive for the prognosis. Recent evidence suggests that in the case of septic foci a time span between making the diagnosis and treatment of the focus should not exceed ca. 6h in order to avoid a worsening of the prognosis. To ensure that the time between symptom onset and effective treatment of the causal factors is not too long, an in-depth expertise in the primary specialty is required throughout the process. This expertise is independent of training in intensive care medicine and can only be acquired through adequate training in the specialty, followed by additional training in intensive care medicine. Expertise in the primary specialty is a prerequisite for the effective treatment of critically ill patients. Maintaining the training specific to the primary specialty and the associated acquisition of specific knowledge in the respective specialty also enables a wider deployment of specialists in clinical practice and a more economical use of diagnostic and therapeutic resources. The additional training in intensive care medicine (supraspecialty) should not be at the expense of content specific to the primary specialty and must remain accessible to all surgical specialties in the field of surgery in the next revision of the training regulations. Due to the unavoidable extent, the additional training in intensive care medicine can itself only be provided on a full-time basis.

Source control is defined as the physical measures undertaken to eliminate the source of infection and control ongoing contamination, as well as restore anatomy and function at the site of infection. It is a key component of the management of patients with sepsis and septic shock and one of the main determinants of the outcome of infections that require source control. While not all infections may require source control, it should be considered in every patient presenting with sepsis; it is applicable and necessary in numerous infections, not only those occurring in the abdominal cavity. Although the biological rationale is clear, several aspects of source control remain under debate. The timing of source control may impact outcome; early source control is particularly relevant for patients with abdominal infections or necrotizing skin and soft tissue infections, as well as for those with more severe disease. Percutaneous procedures are increasingly used for source control; nevertheless, surgery-tailored to the patient and infection-remains a valid option for source control. For outcome optimization, adequate source control is more important than the strategy used. It should be acknowledged that source control interventions may often fail, posing a challenge in this setting. Thus, an individualized, multidisciplinary approach tailored to the infection and patient is preferable.

Damage-control surgery (DCS) is a strategy adopted to limit initial operative interventions in the unstable surgical patient, delaying definitive repairs and abdominal wall closure until physiologic parameters have improved. Although this concept of "physiology over anatomy" was initially described in the management of severely injured trauma patients, the approaches of DCS have become common in the management of nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergencies.While the utilization of damage-control methods in emergency general surgery (EGS) is controversial, numerous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes, making DCS an essential technique for all acute care surgeons. Following a brief history of DCS and its indications in the EGS patient, the phases of DCS will be discussed including an in-depth review of preoperative resuscitation, techniques for intra-abdominal source control, temporary abdominal closure, intensive care unit (ICU) management of the open abdomen, and strategies to improve abdominal wall closure.

Emergency laparotomy may be required in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). NELA is the largest prospectively maintained database of adult emergency laparotomies in England and Wales and includes clinical urgency of the cases. The impact of surgeon subspeciality on outcomes after emergency laparotomy for IBD is unclear. We have investigated this association, according to the degree of urgency in IBD emergency laparotomy, including the effect of minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

Adults with IBD in the NELA database between 2013 and 2016 were included. Surgeon subspeciality was colorectal or non-colorectal. Urgencies are 'Immediate', '2-6 h', '6-18 h' and '18-24 h'. Logistic regression was used to investigate in-patient mortality and post-operative length of stay (LOS).

There was significantly reduced mortality and LOS in IBD patients who were operated on by a colorectal surgeon in the least urgent category of emergency laparotomies; Mortality adjusted OR 2.99 (CI 1.2-7.8) P = 0.025, LOS IRR 1.18 (CI 1.02-1.4) P = 0.025. This association was not seen in more urgent categories. Colorectal surgeons were more likely to use MIS, P < 0.001, and MIS was associated with decreased LOS in the least urgent cohort, P < 0.001, but not in the other urgencies.

We found improved outcomes in the least urgent cohort of IBD emergency laparotomies when operated on by a colorectal surgeon in comparison to a non-colorectal general surgeon. In the most urgent cases, there was no benefit in the operation being performed by a colorectal surgeon. Further work on characterising IBD emergencies by urgency would be of value.

Emergency laparotomy and laparoscopy (EmLap) are amongst the commonest surgical procedures, with high prevalence of sepsis and hence poorer outcomes. However, whether time taken to receive care influences outcomes in patients requiring antibiotics for suspected infection remains largely unexplored. The aim of this work was to determine whether (1) time to care contributes to outcome differences between patients with and without suspected infection and (2) its impact on outcomes only amongst those with suspected infection.

Clinical information was retrospectively obtained from the 2017-2018 Emergency Laparotomy and Laparoscopic Scottish Audit (ELLSA). Time to care referred to six temporal variables describing radiological investigation, anaesthetic triage and surgical management. Outcome measures [mortality, readmission, hospital death, postoperative destination and length of stay (LoS)] were compared using adjusted and unadjusted regression analyses to determine whether the outcome differences could be explained by faster or slower time to care.

Amongst 2243 EmLap patients [median age 65 years (interquartile range 51-75 years), 51.1% female], 892 (39.77%) received antibiotics for suspected infection. Although patients with suspected infection had faster time to care (all p ≤ 0.001) and worse outcomes compared with those who did not, outcome differences were not statistically significant when accounted for time (all p > 0.050). Amongst those who received antibiotics, faster time to care was also associated with decreased risk of postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay and shorter LoS (all p < 0.050).

Worse outcomes associated with infection in EmLap patients were attenuated by faster time to care, which additionally reduced the LoS and ICU stay risk amongst those with suspected infection.

Intra-abdominal infections (IAI) are among the most common global healthcare challenges and they are usually precipitated by disruption to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Their successful management typically requires intensive resource utilization, and despite the best therapies, morbidity and mortality remain high. One of the main issues required to appropriately treat IAI that differs from the other etiologies of sepsis is the frequent requirement to provide physical source control. Fortunately, dramatic advances have been made in this aspect of treatment. Historically, source control was left to surgeons only. With new technologies non-surgical less invasive interventional procedures have been introduced. Alternatively, in addition to formal surgery open abdomen techniques have long been proposed as aiding source control in severe intra-abdominal sepsis. It is ironic that while a lack or even delay regarding source control clearly associates with death, it is a concept that remains poorly described. For example, no conclusive definition of source control technique or even adequacy has been universally accepted. Practically, source control involves a complex definition encompassing several factors including the causative event, source of infection bacteria, local bacterial flora, patient condition, and his/her eventual comorbidities. With greater understanding of the systemic pathobiology of sepsis and the profound implications of the human microbiome, adequate source control is no longer only a surgical issue but one that requires a multidisciplinary, multimodality approach. Thus, while any breach in the GI tract must be controlled, source control should also attempt to control the generation and propagation of the systemic biomediators and dysbiotic influences on the microbiome that perpetuate multi-system organ failure and death. Given these increased complexities, the present paper represents the current opinions and recommendations for future research of the World Society of Emergency Surgery, of the Global Alliance for Infections in Surgery of Surgical Infection Society Europe and Surgical Infection Society America regarding the concepts and operational adequacy of source control in intra-abdominal infections.

Mortality from perforated peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains high, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. We sought to identify predictors of mortality following surgery for perforated PUD.

We performed a retrospective study of acute care surgeries at Kamuzu Central Hospital (KCH) in Malawi from 2013 to 2022. Patients undergoing omental patch surgeries were included. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to model predictors of mortality.

A total of 248 patients were included. The mean age was 30 ± 15 years. Ninety percent were male. Mortality rate was 22.2%. Predictors of mortality included age (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-1.09), shock index (AOR 1.86, 95% CI 1.14-3.03), days to operative intervention (AOR 1.44, 95% CI 1.10-1.88), and presence of complications (AOR 9.65, 95% CI 3.79-24.6).

Mortality following surgery for perforated PUD remains high in this low-resource environment. In-hospital delay is a significant and modifiable predictor of mortality.

On March 9, 2020, the Italian Prime Minister announced the lockdown, which was officially closed on May 4. This extraordinary measure was necessary to contain the COVID-19 pandemic spread in Italy. During this phase, a significant decrease in patients' access to Emergency Department (ED) was observed. Delayed access to treatment determined a delay in the diagnosis of acute surgical conditions, as already documented in other clinical areas, with consequences on surgical outcome and survival. Aim of this study is to provide a detailed description of abdominal urgent-emergent conditions surgically treated and surgical outcomes during the lockdown in a tertiary referral Italian hospital, compared with historical data.

A retrospective review of urgent-emergent patients surgically treated in our department was conducted in order to compare patients' characteristics and surgical outcomes during the period March 9th-May 4th, 2020 with the same period of the previous year.

152 patients were included in our study, 79 patients in 2020 group and 77 patients in 2019. We found no significant differences between the groups regarding ASA score, age, gender, and disease prevalence. Significant differences were found in symptom duration before ER access and abdominal pain as the main symptom in non-traumatic conditions. We also performed a sub-analysis on peritonitis which showed significant differences in: hospital length of stay, presence of colostomy vs. ileostomy, and fatal events in 2020. No differences were found in the use of laparoscopy.

While the overall number of ER accesses has decreased in 2020 group, the number of patients surgically treated in emergency-urgency conditions has not decreased. However, those patients waited significantly more before the hospital access. This diagnostic delay was associated with a more severe clinical condition and a consequent significantly worse prognosis.

Septic peritonitis (SP) is a common life-threatening condition. The aims of this study were to describe the aetiology, clinicopathological abnormalities, complications, treatment, outcome and prognosis of dogs with SP.

Records of 113 dogs diagnosed and surgically treated for SP between 2004 and 2020 were reviewed.

Overall survival rate was 74.3%. Parameters at presentation that were significantly associated with mortality were lateral recumbency (p = 0.001) and elevated respiratory rate (p = 0.045). Hypotension during or after surgery (p < 0.001), liver injury (p < 0.001) and acute kidney injury (p < 0.001) were also more common in non-survivors. The source of contamination, number of surgeries or the location of perforation in cases of gastrointestinal tract perforation were not associated with mortality. Delta glucose (serum vs. abdominal) was available in 36 out of 113 dogs and the difference was more than 20 mg/dl in only 22 of out 36 (61.1%) cases.

Liver and kidney injuries play a role in mortality, and early diagnosis and intervention are recommended to prevent multiple organ dysfunction and death. The reported high sensitivity of delta glucose is questionable in diagnosis of SP.

Mortality following major emergency abdominal surgery is high. Surgical delay is regarded as an important modifiable prognostic factor. Current care-bundles aim at reducing surgical delay, most often using a six-hour cut-off. We aimed to investigate the evidence supporting the in-hospital delay cutoffs currently used.

MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched. We included studies assessing in-hospital surgical delay in major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Studies were only included if they performed adjusted analysis. Surgical delay beyond six hours was the primary cutfrom interest. The primary outcome was mortality at longest follow-up. Meta-analyses were conducted if possible.

Eleven observational studies were included with 16,772 participants. Two studies evaluated delay in unselected major emergency abdominal surgery patients. Three studies applied a six-hour cutoff, but only a study on acute mesenteric ischemia showed an association between delay and mortality. Meta-analysis showed no association with mortality at this cutoff. An association was seen between hourly delay and mortality risk estimate, 1.02 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 - 1.03), and on subgroup analysis of hourly delay in perforated peptic ulcer patients, risk estimate, 1.02 (95% CI, 1.0 - 1.03). All risk estimates had a very low Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation score.

Little evidence supports a six-hour cutoff in unselected major emergency abdominal surgical patients. We found an association between hourly delay and increased mortality; however, evidence supporting this was primarily in patients undergoing surgery for perforated peptic ulcer. This review is limited by the quality of the individual studies.

Omental patch repair is the present gold-standard technique for patients with perforated peptic ulcers (PPUs). Data are lacking regarding the safe ulcer size for omental patch repair leak (OPL). We analyze our experience in managing PPU to identify an ulcer size cut-off for predicting OPL.

Patients who had undergone omental patch repair for PPU between Jan 2004 and Apr 2016 were included. Demographic data, the American Society of Anesthesiologists score, ulcer size, operative approach, post-operative complications, and length of stay were recorded. OPL, intra-abdominal collection, repeat surgery, and 30-day mortality were recorded. The relationship between ulcer size, pre-operative characteristics, and OPL were investigated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis derived the ulcer size cut-off to predict OPL. In addition, we analyzed if ulcer size predicted mortality or malignancy.

Six hundred and ninety patients with a mean age of 55.1 years (range 16-94) were managed for PPU during the study period. Free air on X-ray was evident in 417 (60.4%) patients. Mean ulcer size was 7.8 mm (range 1-50). OPL occurred in 15 patients (2.2%) and 30-day mortality was 7.4% (n=51). Multivariate analysis found ulcer size increase of 10 mm (OR 3.30, 95% CI 1.81-6.02, P<0.001) predicted increased risk of OPL. At 25 mm cut-off, sensitivity was 26.7%, specificity was 97.2%, positive likelihood ratio was 9.47, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.76 for OPL.

Ulcer size increase in 10 mm increases leak rate by 3.3 times. Ulcer size ≥25 mm predicts OPL.

Increased risk of OPL for ≥25 mm warrants need for close post-operative monitoring and lowers threshold for investigations in event of clinical deterioration. Decision for omental patch repair versus gastrectomy however should not be based on ulcer size alone.

Patients with acute abdominal pathology requiring emergency laparotomy who experience a delay to theatre have an increased risk of morbidity, mortality and complications. The timeline between symptom onset and operation is ill defined with international variance in assessment and management. This systematic review aims to define where delays to surgery occur and assess the evidence for interventions trialled across Europe.

A systematic review was performed searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1 January 2005 to 6 May 2020). All studies assessing the impact of time to theatre in patients with acute abdominal pathology requiring emergency laparotomy were considered.

Sixteen papers, involving 50 653 patients, were included in the analysis. Fifteen unique timepoints were identified in the patient pathway between symptom onset and operation which are classified into four distinct phases. Time from admission to theatre (1-72 hours) and mortality rate (10.6-74.5 per cent) varied greatly between studies. Mean time to surgery was significantly higher in deceased patients compared with that in survivors. Delays were related to imaging, diagnosis, decision making, theatre availability and staffing. Four of five interventional studies showed a reduced mortality rate following introduction of an acute laparotomy pathway.

Given the heterogeneous nature of the patient population and pathologies, an assessment and management framework from onset of symptoms to operation is proposed. This could be incorporated into mortality prediction and audit tools and assist in the assessment of interventions.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach.

Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1.

Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds.

These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Timely and adequate management are the key priorities in the care of peritonitis. This review focuses on the cornerstones of the medical support: source control and antiinfective therapies.

Peritonitis from community-acquired or healthcare-associated origins remains a frequent cause of admission to the ICU. Each minute counts for initiating the proper management. Late diagnosis and delayed medical care are associated to dramatically increased mortality rates. The diagnosis of peritonitis can be difficult in these ICU cases. The signs of organ failures are more relevant than biological surrogates. A delayed source control and a late anti-infective therapy are of critical importance. The quality of source control and medical management are other key elements of the prognosis. The conventional rules applied for sepsis are applicable for peritonitis, including hemodynamic support and anti-infective therapy. Growing proportions of multidrug resistant pathogens are reported from surgical samples, mainly related to Gram-negative bacteria. The increasing complexity in the care of these critically ill patients is a strong incentive for a multidisciplinary approach.

Early clinical diagnosis, timely and adequate source control and antiinfective therapy are the essential pillars of the management of peritonitis in ICU patients.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a major challenge for health care services worldwide. It's impact on oncologic therapies and elective surgery has been described recently, and the literature provides guidelines regarding appropriate elective patient treatment during the pandemic. However, the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on emergency surgery services has been poorly investigated up to now.

A 17-item web survey had been distributed to emergency surgeons in June 2020 around the world, investigating the impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on patients and septic diseases both requiring emergency surgery and the time-to-intervention in emergency surgery routine, as well as experiences with surgery in COVID-19 patients.

Ninety-eight collaborators from 31 countries responded to the survey. The majority (65.3%) estimated the impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on emergency surgical patient care as being strong or very strong. Due to the pandemic, 87.8% reported a decrease in the total number of patients undergoing emergency surgery and approximately 25% estimated a delay of more than 2 h in the time-to-diagnosis and another 2 h in the time-to-intervention. Fifty percent make structural problems with in-hospital logistics (e.g. transport of patients, closed normal wards etc.) mainly responsible for delayed emergency surgery and the frequent need (56.1%) for a triage of emergency surgical patients. 56.1% of the collaborators observed more severe septic abdominal diseases during the pandemic, especially for perforated appendicitis and severe septic cholecystitis (41.8% and 40.2%, respectively). 62.2% had experiences with surgery in COVID-19-infected patients.

The results of The WSES COVID-19 emergency surgery survey are alarming. The combination of an estimated decrease in numbers of emergency surgical patients and an observed increase in more severe septic diseases may be a result of the fear of patients from infection with COVID-19 and a consecutive delayed hospital admission and diagnosis. A critical delay in time-to-diagnosis and time-to-intervention may be a result of changes in in-hospital logistics and operating room as well as intensive care capacities. Both reflect the potentially harmful impact of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on emergency surgery services.