Background and Objectives: This study investigates the impact of age upon the safety and outcomes of laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed for acute cholecystitis, by a multivariate approach. Materials and Methods: A 2-year retrospective study was performed on 333 patients admitted for acute cholecystitis who underwent emergency cholecystectomy. The patients included in the study group were divided into four age subgroups: A ≤49 years; B: 50–64 years; C: 65–79 years; D ≥80 years. Results: Surgery after 72 h from onset (p = 0.007), severe forms, and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification and Charlson comorbidity index scores (p < 0.001) are well correlated with older age. Both cardiovascular and surgical related complications were significantly higher in patients over 50 years (p = 0.045), which also proved to be a turning point for increasing the rate of conversion and open surgery. However, the comparative incidence did not differ significantly between patients aged from 50–64 years, 65–79 years and over 80 years (6.03%, 9.09% and 5.8%, respectively). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) was the most frequently used surgical approach in the treatment of acute cholecystitis in all age groups, with better outcomes than open cholecystectomy in terms of decreased overall and postoperative hospital stay, reduced surgery related complications, and the incidence of acute cardiovascular events in the early postoperative period (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The degree of systemic inflammation was the main factor that influenced the adverse outcome of LC in the elderly. Among comorbidities, diabetes was associated with increased surgical and systemic postoperative morbidity, while stroke and chronic renal insufficiency were correlated with a high risk of cardiovascular complications. With adequate perioperative care, the elderly has much to gain from the benefits of a minimally invasive approach, which allows a decreased rate of postoperative complications and a reduced hospital stay.

The present study investigated the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the clinical presentation and therapeutic management of acute surgical abdomen. A retrospective study of emergency hospitalizations with a diagnosis of acute surgical abdomen between April and July 2020 vs. a similar period in 2019 was performed. The observation sheets and the operating protocols were analyzed. Between April and July 2020, 50 cases of acute surgical abdomen were hospitalized and treated, compared to 43 cases in the same period last year. The main types of pathology in both groups included: Occlusions (60%, respectively 44.2% in 2019) and peritonitis (32%, respectively 41.8% in 2019). There was an increased rate of patients with colorectal cancers neglected therapeutically or uninvestigated, who presented during the pandemic period with emergencies for complications such as occlusion or tumor perforation (32 vs. 6.97%, P=0.0039). One case, with gastric perforation, was COVID-positive, with no pulmonary symptoms at admission. The number of postoperative infectious complications was lower during the pandemic (2 vs. 13.95%, P=0.0461). As the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be still far from ending, we should learn to adapt our surgical protocols to the new evidence.Oncological patients are a vulnerable group, who were neglected in the first months of the pandemic. SARS-Cov-2 infection may be a cause of abdominal pain and should be taken into account in different diagnoses of acute abdomen in surgical wards. Correct wearing of adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and respecting strict rules of asepsis and antisepsis are required for preventing in-hospital transmission of infection.

Hantavirus infection belongs to a group of zoonoses rare in the Balkan Peninsula, causing two major syndromes, depending on the viral serotype involved: Hemorrhagic fever with renal syndrome (HFRS) also known as endemic nephropathy and cardiopulmonary syndrome (CPS). Because there is no specific treatment or vaccine for this condition approved in the USA or Europe, the key to minimizing the risk of adverse progression to chronic kidney disease, secondary hypertension or even death is primarily the recognition and early diagnosis of this condition with prompt therapeutic intervention. The aim of this study was to review the literature data on the epidemiology, pathogenesis and management of this disease and to identify several aspects related to the difficulties encountered in diagnosing this pathology, taking into consideration that the disease is not endemic in this geographical area.

Background There has been a lack of a standardized protocol for collection of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and detection of and indication for psychological treatment in cleft care. The objectives of this paper was to translate Cleft Hearing Appearance and Speech Questionnaire (CHASQ) into eight European languages, to investigate whether levels of PRO in patients with cleft lip and/or cleft palate (CL/P) were comparable across countries and to investigate clinician experience of the instrument. Methods The PRO measure-CHASQ-was translated into Bulgarian, Estonian, Greek, Latvian, Macedonian, Romanian, Serbian and Swedish and implemented with patients in the respective countries. A focus group discussion was conducted to investigate health care professional experience on the use of CHASQ in their clinics. Data was analysed in accordance with the principles of thematic analysis. Results Analysis showed statistically significant differences between countries and groups of diagnosis in CHASQ scores. CHASQ helped clinicians gain patient information and informed on treatment decisions, broadened the clinicians' role as caregivers and was perceived as short and easy to use. Limited time and resources in clinics were limitations in implementing the instrument. Conclusions Translation and utilization of CHASQ facilitated international comparison and cooperation. Linguistically, valid replicas of CHASQ are now available in many European languages. Results from this study show that CHASQ may be used for collection of PRO on patient satisfaction and to spark conversation between clinicians, patients and families. Level of evidence: Not rateable.