Background and Objectives:The use of laparoscopy in the trauma setting is gaining momentum, with more therapeutic procedures being performed. We evaluated the use of laparoscopic splenectomy among trauma patients with data from the National Trauma Database. We compared outcomes for trauma patients undergoing laparoscopic (LS) versus open splenectomy (OS).Methods:From the National Trauma Database (2007 to 2015), we identified all patients who underwent a total splenectomy. Patients who had other abdominal operations were excluded. All patients were categorized into 1 of 2 groups: LS or OS. Outcomes of in-hospital mortality, postoperative length of stay, and incidence of major complications between the 2 groups were compared. Bivariate parametric and nonparametric analyses were performed. Patients were then matched on baseline demographic and injury characteristics by using propensity score matching techniques, and we compared differences by using regression analysis.Results:A total of 25,408 patients underwent OS and 113 patients underwent LS (0.44%). Patients were significantly different at baseline, with the LS group being less severely injured. Bivariate analysis revealed no difference in length of stay (9 vs 8 days, P = .62), incidence of major complications (10% vs 15%, P = .24), or mortality (6% vs 11%, P = .23). LS was performed in 29.2% of patients beyond 24 hours from presentation compared with 9.5% in the OS (P < .001). Adjusted multivariate analysis showed no overall difference in outcomes.Conclusion:LS for trauma is increasingly being used at many centers throughout the United States. The procedure is safe, with outcomes similar to those of OS in selected trauma patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to a worldwide suspension of bariatric and metabolic surgery (BMS) services. The current study analyses data on patterns of service delivery, recovery of practices, and protective measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic by bariatric teams. Materials and Methods The current study is a subset analysis of the GENEVA study which was an international cohort study between 01/05/2020 and 31/10/2020. Data were specifically analysed regarding the timing of BMS suspension, patterns of service recovery, and precautionary measures deployed. Results A total of 527 surgeons from 439 hospitals in 64 countries submitted data regarding their practices and handling of the pandemic. Smaller hospitals (with less than 200 beds) were able to restart BMS programmes more rapidly (time to BMS restart 60.8 ± 38.9 days) than larger institutions (over 2000 beds) (81.3 ± 30.5 days) (p = 0.032). There was a significant difference in the time interval between cessation/reduction and restart of bariatric services between government-funded practices (97.1 ± 76.2 days), combination practices (84.4 ± 47.9 days), and private practices (58.5 ± 38.3 days) (p < 0.001). Precautionary measures adopted included patient segregation, utilisation of personal protective equipment, and preoperative testing. Following service recovery, 40% of the surgeons operated with a reduced capacity. Twenty-two percent gave priority to long waiters, 15.4% gave priority to uncontrolled diabetics, and 7.6% prioritised patients requiring organ transplantation. Conclusion This study provides global, real-world data regarding the recovery of BMS services following the COVID-19 pandemic. Graphical abstract

No abstract