No abstract

Background and objective: No current nationwide consensus exists on pilonidal disease (PD) treatment in Switzerland and Austria. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the spectrum of PD treatment strategies in Switzerland and Austria. Materials and Methods: A survey including 196 certified institutions (Switzerland, N = 99 and Austria, N = 97) was performed. Treatment strategies for both chronic and acute pilonidal disease were investigated, as well as evolution of treatment over the last 20 years. Results: In total, 92 of 196 (47%) hospitals participated in the survey. Recurrence rate (20%) was similar between the two countries. In acute pilonidal disease, a two-stage approach with incision and drainage as the first step was preferred over a one-stage procedure in both countries. In Austria, all patients with chronic pilonidal disease were treated as inpatients, whereas 28% of patients in Switzerland were treated on an outpatient basis (p = 0.0019). Median length of hospital stay was double in Austria (four days) compared to Switzerland (two days; p < 0.001). Primary resection and off-midline closure (p = 0.017) and the use of tissue flaps (p = 0.023) were performed more commonly in Austria than in Switzerland. Minimally invasive techniques were performed more often in Switzerland than in Austria (52% vs. 4%, p < 0.001). Overall, wide excision with secondary wound healing or midline closures declined over the last 20 years. Conclusion: Treatment strategies for chronic PD differ between Austria and Switzerland with more and longer inpatient care in Austria, increasingly minimally invasive approaches in Switzerland, and outdated procedures still being performed in both countries. Overall, heterogeneity of practice dominates in both countries.

No abstract

Background: With the rapid global spread of the acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, urgent health-care measures have been implemented. We describe the organizational process in setting up a coronavirus disease 2019 triage unit in a Swiss tertiary care hospital. Methods: Our triage unit was setup outside of the main hospital building and consists of three areas: 1. Pre-triage, 2. Triage, and 3. Triage plus. The Pre-triage checkpoints identify any potential COVID-19infected patients and redirect them to the main Triage area where trained medical staff screen which patients undergo diagnostic testing. If testing is indicated, nasopharyngeal swabs are performed. If patients require further investigations, they are referred to Triage plus. At this stage, patients are then discharged home after additional testing or admitted to the hospital for management. Observations: A total of 1265 patients were screened between 10 March 2020 and 12 April 2020 at our Triage unit. Of these, 112 (8.9%) tested positive. 73 (65%) of the positivelytested patients were female and 39 (35%) were male. The mean age for all patients was 43.8 years (SD 16.3 years). Distinguishing between genders, mean age for females was 41.1 (SD 16.5) and mean age for males was 48.6 (SD 14.9), with females being significantly younger than males (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Our triage unit was setup as part of a large-scale restructuring process. Current challenges include low sensitivity for test results as well as limited staff and resources. We hope that our experience will help other health care institutions develop similar triage systems.

No abstract