Pietro Fransvea
Antonio La Greca
Francesco Giovinazzo
Gianluca Costa3
Gabriele Sganga- 1Emergency Surgery and Trauma, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS Roma - Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
- 2Unit of General and Liver Transplant Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy
- 3Colorectal Surgery Unit, Surgery Center, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome, Rome, Italy
Editorial on the Research Topic
Acute care surgery, emergency surgery, surgical outcomes
Introduction
Patients undergoing Emergency Gastrointestinal Surgery (EGS) are so heterogeneous in terms of procedures they receive, comorbidities and physiologic derangement at the time of diagnosis and treatment that perioperative risk stratification, surgical planning and risk mitigation may be exceedingly cumbersome. Nonetheless, EGS, while representing about 15% of the whole surgical burden worldwide, still accounts for more than 50% of global surgical morbidity and mortality (2). Thus, a structured decision-making process, with accurate risk stratification and patients' priority addressing (3–5), seems even more crucial in the emergency than in the elective setting. On one hand, we need to better assess EGS patients' needs and improve surgical outcomes in the emergency setting. How? First, perioperative risk stratification is crucial to improve shared decision-making among the care team and the patient, perioperative planning, and risk mitigation (5, 8). As suggested by Yun Il, several factors are thought to be related to the postoperative outcome, but frailty has recently gained increased attention and its preoperative screening has been advocated as a critical tool in predicting length of stay, operative risk, and surgical outcomes in the elderly (1). Second, as reported by Eydivandi N, a thorough attention in intraoperative care items, such as levels of carbon dioxide insufflation, analgesia, i.v. fluid load, has a pivotal role in preventing post-operative surgical complications. In this respect, the so called “Enhanced recovery after emergency surgery” concept may represent the new frontier of perioperative care for EGS patients (6, 7). Finally, as reported by Ali et al., the Clavien–Dindo classification still plays a crucial role in assessing postoperative complications and predicting the impact of surgery on quality of life (8). On the other hand, the new emerging concept of EGS as a time dependent condition can help achieving early diagnosis and treatment, thus improving outcomes and reducing health care costs (9, 10). During the COVID19 pandemic, we have witnessed a dramatic decrease in surgical emergencies but also an increase in the severity of acute diseases, as patients, frightened by the risk of contagion, went late to the ED. Definitive treatment was often postponed in favour of a non-operative treatment (NOM), both due to concomitant Sars-Cov-2 infection in these patients as well as to shortage of resources (such as ICU beds and surgical rooms) engaged with COVID-19 patients (11). If we look at a single disease such as acute appendicitis, several studies have shown that a conservative approach may further increase the risk of recurrence: more than one third of the patients treated by antibiotics only have been re-admitted for a recurrent episode of appendicitis (12–16). Moreover, a systematic review and metanalysis by Podda et al. showed that appendectomy remains the most effective treatment for patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis and that antibiotics-first strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults is associated with increased rates of peritonitis at surgery (16). Coming to the general landscape of EGS, it is well known that a prolonged waiting time from the onset of symptoms to surgical treatment is directly related to an increased risk of major bowel resection and postoperative complications (17–19). Peritonitis due to gastric perforation is associated with an increasing risk of mortality of 2% for each hour of delay in surgical treatment after the diagnosis (20–23). Patients with acute cholecystitis should undergo surgery within a time lapse of less than 10 days, such as stated in modern guidelines (24–29). Femur fractures should receive a definitive surgical treatment within 48 h from diagnosis, as this time cut-off is directly linked to better outcomes (30). Delay in the treatment of acute diseases is not only of ethical interest in terms of harm for the patient, but also has a critical impact in terms of social costs arising from the disability and reduced productivity of the injured. This concept is worldwide accepted for the so-called time-dependent acute diseases such as stroke, acute myocardial infarction and polytrauma: maybe we should think about acute abdominal pain as a time-dependent disease also. Based on the evidence of the literature and common surgeons' experience, we hypothesized a “Traffic Light System” (TLS) for patient waiting in the ED with surgical diseases needing an operative treatment based on the waiting time since arrival. When a diagnosis is done, the patient enters in the “green light” status and is ready for surgery. If surgery cannot be performed timely, patients enter in a “yellow light” status, acquiring priority over other diseases. “Red light” means that the patient cannot wait anymore and needs a prompt treatment. With this simple stratification system, waiting times for surgery in the emergency department may decrease together with the need for major resections, morbidity and mortality rates. Last but not least, new technologies such as robotic platforms and machine learning models, though affected by high costs, can help achieve better outcomes in EGS. In this context, a paradigm shift may be represented by the application of the so-called “precision surgery” concept to acute care surgery: a global effort in education and practice to ensure an elevated standard of care to all acute care surgery patients in terms of knowledge, technical skills, technology and commitment leading to a reduction in healthcare costs, including costs for chronic post-surgical disability (31, 32).
Author contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.
Acknowledgments
We deeply thank all the authors and reviewers who have participated in this Research Topic.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Costa G, Fransvea P, Puccioni C, Giovinazzo F, Carannante F, Bianco G, et al. Gastro-intestinal 139 emergency surgery: Evaluation of morbidity and mortality. Protocol of a prospective, 140 multicentre study in Italy for evaluating the burden of abdominal emergency surgery in 141 different age groups. (The GESEMM study). Front Surg. (2022) 9:927044. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.927044. eCollection 202236189400
2. Available at: https://www.nela.org.uk/.
3. Harris AHS, Trickey AW, Eddington HS, Seib CD, Kamal RN, Kuo AC, et al. A tool to estimate risk of 30-day mortality and complications after hip fracture surgery: accurate enough for some but not all purposes? A study from the ACS-NSQIP database. Clin Orthop Relat Res. (2022) 480(12):2335–46. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000002294
4. Costa G, Bersigotti L, Massa G, Lepre L, Fransvea P, Lucarini A, et al. The Emergency Surgery Frailty Index (EmSFI): development and internal validation of a novel simple bedside risk score for elderly patients undergoing emergency surgery. Aging Clin Exp Res. (2021) 33(8):2191–201. doi: 10.1007/s40520-020-01735-5
5. Xie F, Ong MEH, Liew JNMH, Tan KBK, Ho AFW, Nadarajan GD, et al. Development and assessment of an interpretable machine learning triage tool for estimating mortality after emergency admissions. JAMA Netw Open. (2021) 4(8):e2118467. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.18467
6. Ceresoli M, Biloslavo A, Bisagni P, Ciuffa C, Fortuna L, La Greca A, et al. Implementing enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery: a prospective multicenter observational study. World J Surg. (2023) 47(6):1339–47. doi: 10.1007/s00268-023-06984-9
7. Clavien PA, Barkun J, de Oliveira ML, Vauthey JN, Dindo D, Schulick RD, et al. The Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications: five-year experience. Ann Surg. (2009) 250(2):187–96. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181b13ca2
8. Fransvea P, Fransvea G, Liuzzi P, Sganga G, Mannini A, Costa G. Study and validation of an explainable machine learning-based mortality prediction following emergency surgery in the elderly: a prospective observational study. Int J Surg. (2022) 107:106954. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2022.106954
9. De Simone B, Kluger Y, Moore EE, et al. The new timing in acute care surgery (new TACS) classification: a WSES delphi consensus study. World J Emerg Surg. (2023) 18(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13017-023-00499-3
10. Fransvea P, Di Grezia M, La Greca A, Cozza V, Sganga G. Are emergency surgical patients “collateral victims” of COVID-19 outbreak? Injury. (2020) 51(10):2330–1. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2020.06.038
11. Cozza V, Fransvea P, La Greca A, et al. I-ACTSS-COVID-19-the Italian acute care and trauma surgery survey for COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. Updates Surg. (2020) 72(2):297–304. doi: 10.1007/s13304-020-00832-4
12. Salminen P, Tuominen R, Paajanen H, et al. Five-year follow-up of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the APPAC randomized clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc. (2018) 320(12):1259–65. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13201
13. Sippola S, Haijanen J, Viinikainen L, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction at 7-year follow-up of antibiotic therapy vs appendectomy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis: a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg. (2020) 155(4):283–9. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2019.6028
14. Fransvea P, Fico V, Cozza V, Costa G, Lepre L, Mercantini P, et al. Clinical-pathological features and treatment of acute appendicitis in the very elderly: an interim analysis of the FRAILESEL Italian multicentre prospective study. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. (2021). doi: 10.1007/s00068-021-01645-9. [Published online ahead of print]33738537
15. Podda M, Cillara N, Di Saverio S, et al. Antibiotics-first strategy for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults is associated with increased rates of peritonitis at surgery. A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing appendectomy and non-operative management with antibiotics. Surgeon. (2017) 15(5):303–14. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2017.02.001
16. Abu Foul S, Egozi E, Assalia A, Kluger Y, Mahajna A. Is early appendectomy in adults diagnosed with acute appendicitis mandatory? A prospective study. World J Emerg Surg. (2019) 14(2). doi: 10.1186/s13017-018-0221-2
17. Ditillo MF, Dziura JD, Rabinovici R. Is it safe to delay appendectomy in adults with acute appendicitis? Ann Surg. (2006) 244(5):656–60. doi: 10.1097/01.sla.0000231726.53487.dd
18. Moller MH, Adamsen S, Thomsen RW, Moller AM. Preoperative prognostic factors for mortality in peptic ulcer perforation: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. (2010) 45:785–805. doi: 10.3109/00365521003783320
19. Fransvea P, Costa G, Lepre L, et al. Laparoscopic repair of perforated peptic ulcer in the elderly: an interim analysis of the FRAILESEL Italian multicenter prospective cohort study. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. (2020) 31(1):2–7. doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000826
20. Sivaram P, Sreekumar A. Preoperative factors influencing mortality and morbidity in peptic ulcer perforation. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. (2018) 44:251–7. doi: 10.1007/s00068-017-0777-7
21. Tarasconi A, Coccolini F, Biffl WL, et al. Perforated and bleeding peptic ulcer: WSES guidelines. World J Emerg Surg. (2020) 15:3. doi: 10.1186/s13017-019-0283-9
22. Mayumi T, Okamoto K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo guidelines 2018: management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. (2018) 25:96–100. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.519
23. Wiggins T, Markar SR, MacKenzie H, et al. Optimum timing of emergency cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis in England: population-based cohort study. Surg Endosc. (2019) 33:2495–502. doi: 10.1007/s00464-018-6537-x
24. Yokoe M, Hata J, Takada T, et al. Tokyo guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. (2018) 25(1):41–54. doi: 10.1002/jhbp.515
25. Pisano M, Allievi N, Gurusamy K, et al. 2020 World society of emergency surgery updated guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute calculus cholecystitis. World J Emerg Surg. (2020) 15(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s13017-020-00336-x
26. Simunovic N, Devereaux PJ, Sprague S, Guyatt GH, Schemitsch E, Debeer J, et al. Effect of early surgery after hip fracture on mortality and complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. Can Med Assoc J. (2010) 182(15):1609–16. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.092220
27. Moja L, Piatti A, Pecoraro V, Ricci C, Virgili G, Salanti G, et al. Timing matters in hip fracture surgery: patients operated within 48 h have better outcomes. A meta-analysis and meta-regression of over 190,000 patients. PLoS One. (2012) 7(10):e46175. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046175
28. Wibring K, Magnusson C, Axelsson C, Lundgren P, Herlitz J, Andersson Hagiwara M. Towards definitions of time-sensitive conditions in prehospital care. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. (2020) 28(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s13049-020-0706-3
29. Farquharson B, Abhyankar P, Smith K, Dombrowski SU, Treweek S, Dougall N, et al. Reducing delay in patients with acute coronary syndrome and other time-critical conditions: a systematic review to identify the behaviour change techniques associated with effective interventions. Open Heart. (2019) 6(1):e000975. doi: 10.1136/openhrt-2018-000975
30. Carr BG, Matthew Edwards J, Martinez R. Regionalized care for time-critical conditions: lessons learned from existing networks. Acad Emerg Med. (2010) 17:1354–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00940.x
Keywords: outcomes, surgery, acute care, precision surgery, morbidity
Citation: Fransvea P, La Greca A, Giovinazzo F, Costa G and Sganga G (2023) Editorial: Surgical outcomes in acute care surgery: should we introduce the concept of time-critical condition?. Front. Surg. 10:1234200. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2023.1234200
Received: 3 June 2023; Accepted: 13 June 2023;
Published: 26 July 2023.
Edited and Reviewed by: Aali Jan Sheen, Manchester Royal Infirmary, United Kingdom
© 2023 Fransvea, La Greca, Giovinazzo, Costa and Sganga. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Pietro Fransvea pietro.fransvea@policlinicogemelli.it