Background Acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC) has a high incidence in the general population. The presence of several areas of uncertainty, along with the availability of new evidence, prompted the current update of the 2016 WSES (World Society of Emergency Surgery) Guidelines on ACC. Materials and methods The WSES president appointed four members as a scientific secretariat, four members as an organization committee and four members as a scientific committee, choosing them from the expert affiliates of WSES. Relevant key questions were constructed, and the task force produced drafts of each section based on the best scientific evidence from PubMed and EMBASE Library; recommendations were developed in order to answer these key questions. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were reviewed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria (see https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/). All the statements were presented, discussed and voted upon during the Consensus Conference at the 6th World Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery held in Nijmegen (NL) in May 2019. A revised version of the statements was voted upon via an online questionnaire until consensus was reached. Results The pivotal role of surgery is confirmed, including in high-risk patients. When compared with the WSES 2016 guidelines, the role of gallbladder drainage is reduced, despite the considerable technical improvements available. Early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (ELC) should be the standard of care whenever possible, even in subgroups of patients who are considered fragile, such as the elderly; those with cardiac disease, renal disease and cirrhosis; or those who are generally at high risk for surgery. Subtotal cholecystectomy is safe and represents a valuable option in cases of difficult gallbladder removal. Conclusions, knowledge gaps and research recommendations ELC has a central role in the management of patients with ACC. The value of surgical treatment for high-risk patients should lead to a distinction between high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery. Further evidence on the role of clinical judgement and the use of clinical scores as adjunctive tools to guide treatment of high-risk patients and patients who are not suitable for surgery is required. The development of local policies for safe laparoscopic cholecystectomy is recommended.

No abstract

Background In 2017, the World Society of Emergency Surgery published its guidelines for the management of adult and pediatric patients with splenic trauma. Several issues regarding the follow-up of patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM remained unsolved. Methods Using a modified Delphi method, we sought to explore ongoing areas of controversy in the NOM of splenic trauma and reach a consensus among a group of 48 international experts from five continents (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, America) concerning optimal follow-up strategies in patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM. Results Consensus was reached on eleven clinical research questions and 28 recommendations with an agreement rate ≥ 80%. Mobilization after 24 h in low-grade splenic trauma patients (WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) was suggested, while in patients with high-grade splenic injuries (WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), if no other contraindications to early mobilization exist, safe mobilization of the patient when three successive hemoglobins 8 h apart after the first are within 10% of each other was considered safe according to the panel. The panel suggests adult patients to be admitted to hospital for 1 day (for low-grade splenic injuries—WSES Class I, AAST Grades I–II) to 3 days (for high-grade splenic injuries—WSES Classes II–III, AAST Grades III–V), with those with high-grade injuries requiring admission to a monitored setting. In the absence of specific complications, the panel suggests DVT and VTE prophylaxis with LMWH to be started within 48–72 h from hospital admission. The panel suggests splenic artery embolization (SAE) as the first-line intervention in patients with hemodynamic stability and arterial blush on CT scan, irrespective of injury grade. Regarding patients with WSES Class II blunt splenic injuries (AAST Grade III) without contrast extravasation, a low threshold for SAE has been suggested in the presence of risk factors for NOM failure. The panel also suggested angiography and eventual SAE in all hemodynamically stable adult patients with WSES Class III injuries (AAST Grades IV–V), even in the absence of CT blush, especially when concomitant surgery that requires change of position is needed. Follow-up imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound/CT scan in 48–72 h post-admission of trauma in splenic injuries WSES Class II (AAST Grade III) or higher treated with NOM was considered the best strategy for timely detection of vascular complications. Conclusion This consensus document could help guide future prospective studies aiming at validating the suggested strategies through the implementation of prospective trauma databases and the subsequent production of internationally endorsed guidelines on the issue.

OBJECTIVE Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are currently the gold standard to evaluate patient physical performance and ability to recover after spine surgery. However, PROMs have significant limitations due to the qualitative and subjective nature of the information reported as well as the impossibility of using this method in a continuous manner. The smartphone global positioning system (GPS) can be used to provide continuous, quantitative, and objective information on patient mobility. The aim of this study was to use daily mobility features derived from the smartphone GPS to characterize the perioperative period of patients undergoing spine surgery and to compare these objective measurements to PROMs, the current gold standard. METHODS Eight daily mobility features were derived from smartphone GPS data in a population of 39 patients undergoing spine surgery for a period of 2 months starting 3weeks before surgery. In parallel, three different PROMs for pain (visual analog scale [VAS]), disability (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) and functional status (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS]) were serially measured. Segmented linear regression analysis was used to assess trends before and after surgery. The Student paired t-test was used to compare pre- and postoperative PROM scores. Pearson’s correlation was calculated between the daily average of each GPS-based mobility feature and the daily average of each PROM score during the recovery period. RESULTS Smartphone GPS features provided data documenting a reduction in mobility during the immediate postoperative period, followed by a progressive and steady increase with a return to baseline mobility values 1 month after surgery. PROMs measuring pain, physical performance, and disability were significantly different 1 month after surgery compared to the 2 immediate preoperative weeks. The GPS-based features presented moderate to strong linear correlation with pain VAS and PROMIS physical score during the recovery period (Pearson r > 0.7), whereas the ODI and PROMIS mental scores presented a weak correlation (Pearson r approximately 0.4). CONCLUSIONS Smartphone-derived GPS features were shown to accurately characterize perioperative mobility trends in patients undergoing surgery for spine-related diseases. Features related to time (rather than distance) were better at describing patient physical and performance status. Smartphone GPS has the potential to be used for the development of accurate, noninvasive and personalized tools for patient mobility monitoring after surgery.