Search

Acute appendicitis (AA) is a frequent cause of abdominal pain requiring surgical treatment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical societies considered other therapeutic options due to uncertainties in the evolution of the disease. The purpose of this study is to assess the treatment of AA by members of two Brazilian surgical societies in this period. A common questionnaire was sent in 2020. There were 382 responses. Most surgeons had more than 15 years of profession (68.3%) and treated more than five cases per month (44.8%). About 72.5% would indicate chest CT to investigate COVID-19 in patients with AA. For those patients sustaining uncomplicated AA, without COVID-19, 60.2% would indicate laparoscopic appendectomy (VLA), followed by open appendectomy (OA) (31.7%) and non-operative management (NOM) (1.3%). For those with mild COVID-19, OA was suggested by 51.0%, followed by VLA (29.6%) and NOM (6.0%). For those with severe COVID-19, OA was proposed by 35.3%, followed by NOM (19.9%) and VLA (18.6%). For patients with periappendiceal abscesses, without COVID-19, VLA was suggested by 54.2%, followed by OA (33.2%) and NOM (4.4%). For those with mild COVID-19, OA was proposed in 49.5%, followed by VLA (29.3%) and NOM (8.9%). In those with severe COVID-19, OA was proposed in 36.6%, followed by NOM (25.1%) and VLA (17.3%). This information, based on two recognized Brazilian surgical societies, can help the surgeon to select the best approach individually.

Currently doctors and health professionals are facing a challenging pandemic caused by a new strain called 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). Human infection with COVID-19 does not yet have the clinical spectrum fully described, and the pattern of lethality, mortality, infectivity and transmissibility is not known with precision. There is no specific vaccine or medication available. Treatment is supportive and nonspecific. In Brazil, as in the rest of the world, the number of COVID-19 cases has grown alarmingly, leading to an increase in the number of hospitalizations as well as in mortality from the disease. Currently, the states with the highest number of cases are, respectively, São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Distrito Federal and Ceará. The objective of this work is to offer alternatives in order to guide surgeons regarding the surgical management of the airways in patients with suspicion and / or confirmation for COVID-19 infection.

The World Health Organization recognized in March 2020 the existence of a pandemic for the new coronavirus that appeared in China, in late 2019, and whose disease was named COVID-19. In this context, the SBAIT (Brazilian Society of Integrated Care for Traumatized Patients) conducted a survey with 219 trauma and emergency surgeons regarding the availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the role of the surgeon in this pandemic by means of an electronic survey. It was observed that surgeons have been acting under inadequate conditions, with a lack of basic supplies as well as more specific equipment such as N95 masks and facial shields for the care of potential victims who may be contaminated. The latter increases the risk of contamination of professionals, resulting in potential losses in the working teams. Immediate measures must be taken to guarantee access to safety equipment throughout the country, since all trauma victims and/or patients with emergency surgical conditions must be treated as potential carriers of COVID-19.

In December 2019, in Wuhan, China, the first cases of what would be known as COVID-19, a disease caused by an RNA virus called SARS-CoV-2, were described. Its spread was rapid and wide, leading the World Health Organization to declare a pandemic in March 2020. The disease has distinct clinical presentations, from asymptomatic to critical cases, with high lethality. Parallel to this, patients with non-traumatic surgical emergencies, such as acute appendicitis and cholecystitis, continue to be treated at the emergency services. In this regard, there were several doubts on how to approach these cases, among them: how to quickly identify the patient with COVID-19, what is the impact of the abdominal surgical disease and its treatment on the evolution of patients with COVID-19, in addition to the discussion about the role of the non-operative treatment for abdominal disease under these circumstances. In this review, we discuss these problems based on the available evidence.

Objective: to analyze the profile of appendectomies performed in the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS) and to compare the laparoscopic and laparotomic techniques of appendectomy., Methods: This work used information from DataSus from 2008 to 2014 (http://datasus.saude.gov.br). We compared the data of patients submitted to laparotomic appendectomy with those submitted to laparoscopic one., Results: when comparing the total growth of appendectomies, the laparoscopic route increased 279.7%, while the increase in laparotomic surgery was 25% (p <0.001) in the study period. With regard to medical and hospital costs, laparoscopic appendectomy accounted for only 2.6% of the total expenditure on appendectomies performed by the Unified Health System (SUS) hospitals, with an average cost 7.6% lower than that of laparotomy procedures, but without statistical significance. The mortality rate was 57.1% lower in the laparoscopic approach when compared with laparotomy., Conclusion: there has been a significant increase in the laparoscopic route in the treatment of appendicitis, but the method is still rarely used in SUS patients. The costs of laparoscopic appendectomy were similar to those observed in laparotomic access.

Objective: to analyze the implementation of a trauma registry in a university teaching hospital delivering care under the unified health system (SUS), and its ability to identify points for improvement in the quality of care provided., Methods: the data collection group comprised students from medicine and nursing courses who were holders of FAPESP scholarships (technical training 1) or otherwise, overseen by the coordinators of the project. The itreg (ECO Sistemas-RJ/SBAIT) software was used as the database tool. Several quality "filters" were proposed to select those cases for review in the quality control process., Results: data for 1344 trauma patients were input to the itreg database between March and November 2014. Around 87.0% of cases were blunt trauma patients, 59.6% had RTS>7.0 and 67% ISS<9. Full records were available for 292 cases, which were selected for review in the quality program. The auditing filters most frequently registered were laparotomy four hours after admission and drainage of acute subdural hematomas four hours after admission. Several points for improvement were flagged, such as control of overtriage of patients, the need to reduce the number of negative imaging exams, the development of protocols for achieving central venous access, and management of major TBI., Conclusion: the trauma registry provides a clear picture of the points to be improved in trauma patient care, however, there are specific peculiarities for implementing this tool in the Brazilian milieu.

Based on the Atlanta Classification, acute pancreatitis is classified according to its severity in either mild or severe acute pancreatitis. In recent years, several issues regarding acute pancreatitis have been discussed in the literature. These issues include how many categories of severity should be considered; whether or not a patient with organ failure holds similar holds severity of disease and prognosis of a patient with infected necrosis; the role of transient organ failure; and how to evaluate organ failure. The"Evidence-based Telemedicine - Trauma and Acute Care Surgery" (EBT-TACS) conducted a review of the recent literature on the topic, and critically appraised its most relevant pieces of evidence.. The articles discussed suggested classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis in three or four categories, rather than mild or severe only, and addressed which is the best score to assess organ failure. The following recommendations were proposed: (1) Acute pancreatitis should be classified into four categories: mild, moderate, severe and critical, which allows a better determination of the characteristics of patients, (2) Evaluation of organ failure with a severity score that preferably evaluate directly each organ failure, such as the SOFA and MODS (Marshall). The SOFA seems to have greater accuracy, but the MODS has better applicability due to its ease of use.

Recent meta-analyses suggested that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 1 week of symptom onset) for uncomplicated acute gallbladder disease is safe and feasible. However, surveys on surgical practices indicated that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is performed by only a minority of surgeons. Furthermore, the exact time-point for performing this procedure as well as its cost-effectiveness remain a matter of debate. The TBE - CiTE Journal Club performed a critical appraisal of the most relevant evidence recently published on timing of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and its cost-effectiveness for the management of uncomplicated acute cholecystitis and provides evidence-based recommendations on the topic. The literature encompasses small trials with high risk of biases. It suggests that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy is safe and shortens hospital stay. There is scarcity of well-designed and large cost-utility analyses. The following main recommendations were generated: (1) Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be attempted as the first-line treatment within one week of symptoms onset; and (2) The cost-effectiveness of early laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be evaluated at the individual hospital level, taking into consideration local resources such as the availability of trained personal, operating room and laparoscopic equipment.