INTRODUCTIONA scientific congress is an environment in which physicians with the same specialty and other health staff participate in, the results of which is shared as abstracts, and in which ideas are exchanged with one another. The abstracts presented in scientific congresses (oral/poster) are evaluated by the commissions that are assigned by the congress scientific committee during the preparation period of the congress and it is decided if the studies will be accepted in the congress or not.The publication of abstracts in national/international peer-reviewed journals after the congress is one of the indicators of the scientific value of the congress. In a Cochrane meta-analysis published in 2007, it was stated that the publication rate of the abstracts presented in a congress was 44.5% (1). Articles evaluating the conversion rate of the abstracts presented in international congresses into publications are limited. Similarly, the number of studies that are conducted in order to reveal the scientific efficiency of national congresses held in our country is also low. In these studies, it is reported that the conversion rate of the abstracts presented in the congresses to publications is very limited (between 5.7% and 28.6%) (2-7).Turkish Society of Colorectal Surgery (TSCRS) organizes periodic scientific activities in order to develop the professional, scientific and social relationships between its members in accordance with its aims. The congresses of TSCRS, which are organized once in two years, are one of the important scientific activities. In our study, we aimed to define the conversion rate of the abstracts presented in the congresses organized in 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2011 to articles in peer-reviewed journals, to determine the factors (presentation type, study type, congress year etc.) effecting publication rate. MATERIAL AND METHODSThe abstracts of oral presentations (OP) and poster presentations (PP) presented at the TSCRS congresses in

Background/Purpose: The presentation of scientific studies at major meetings serves to rapidly share study results with the scientific community. On the other hand, full-text publication of abstracts in peer-reviewed journals ensures the dissemination of science. This study examines the publication rate (PR) of meeting abstracts presented at the European Society for Surgical Research (ESSR) congresses and determines/compares the factors affecting the PRs. Methods: All presentations at the ESSR congresses held during 2008-2011 were retrospectively assessed. Manuscripts indexed in PubMed were included. The meeting year, journal impact factor (IF) in the publication year, study type, presentation type, time to publication and geographic origin of studies were assessed. Results: Among a total of 1,368 oral and poster abstracts, 48.7% (n = 391) of the oral presentations (OPs) and 29.7% (n = 168) of the poster presentations (PPs) were published in medical journals indexed in PubMed. The mean IF of the journals was 2.696 (0.17-14.95). The journals that published OPs had a higher IF than the journals in which PPs were published (2.944 vs. 2.118; p < 0.001). The PR was also higher in the OP group than in the PP group of journals (p < 0.001). The time to publication was 17.5 months (−166 to 82) and was shorter for PPs than for OPs (14.02 vs. 19.09 months; p = 0.01). According to the study type, experimental studies had a significantly higher PR (53.7%; p < 0.001); however, there was no significant difference in PR in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of clinical studies. The clinical studies were also compared according to the IF values of the journals in terms of the prospective or retrospective nature of the study, and no significant difference was found (p = 0.62). Conclusion: The ESSR congress is an efficient meeting for researchers from varied surgical disciplines and has a PR equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. The congress has achieved a PR of 40.9% over 4 years with an average IF of 2.696 and a mean time to publication of 17.5 months, which is equivalent to that of similar scientific meetings. OPs have a higher PR in journals with greater IF values as compared with PPs.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused over 1.75 million deaths in the world to date. Although the leading cause of mortality is respiratory disorders and thromboembolic pathologies, other rare pathologies may also increase mortality and morbidity. In our study, we aimed to examine life-threatening hematomas, risk factors, and management during COVID-19. METHODS:Institutional center (a third level pandemic center) database was searched for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during 10 months period between March 11, 2020, and December 17, 2020, retrospectively. Patients with bleeding symptoms/signs were detected. Patients with gastrointestinal system bleeding were excluded from the study. Patients with hematomas were included in the study. RESULTS:Eleven of a total 5484 patients had hematomas (0.2%). Median age was 76 (min-max: 56-90). Seven (63.6%) patients were male and 4 (36.4%) were female. All patients had at least one comorbidities, been under treatment dose of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and severe or critical COVID-19 disease. Seven retroperitoneal hematomas, two rectus sheath hematomas, one breast hematoma, and in one patient both retroperitoneal and breast hematomas were diagnosed. Angiographic arterial embolization was applied to 5 (45.5%) patients. Overall mortality rate in patients with bleeding complications was 54.5% (n=6), and the male-to-female ratio was 66.7% (n=4) versus 33.3% (n=2).CONCLUSION: Hematomas are rare, but mortality increasing phenomena in COVID-19 patients. Age, male gender, severe or critical COVID-19 disease, comorbidities, and treatment dose of LMWH may be risk factors. New onset of abdominal/back pain and ecchymotic skin lesions may be signs of bleeding in this patient group. Mortality can be reduced by early diagnosis of hematoma and interventional methods.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal system bleeding (UGIB) that occurs with the effect of coagulopathy due to COVID-19 disease itself and drugs such as LMWH and steroids used in the treatment negatively affects the outcomes. In this study, we aimed to examine the frequency of gastrointestinal system bleeding in COVID-19 patients, risk factors, effect on outcomes, and management. METHODS: Institutional center (a third-level pandemic center) database was searched for patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 11, 2020, and December 17, 2020, retrospectively. Patients with UGIB symptoms/signs were included in the study. Age, gender, body mass index (kg/m 2 ), hospital department where bleeding was diagnosed, previous bleeding history, comorbidities, and medication were steroid, anticoagulant, low weight molecule heparin, and proton-pomp inhibitor, endoscopic findings/treatment, transfusion, and mortality rates were evaluated. Patients were divided into two groups as survivors and non-survivors and parameters were compared. RESULTS: Forty-five of a total 5484 patients under COVID-19 treatment had upper gastrointestinal bleeding (0.8%). The average age of the patients was 70.1 years and 73% bleeders were male. Nineteen patients (44%) underwent endoscopy. The most common etiologies of bleeding were gastric/duodenal ulcer (n=9), erosive gastritis (n=4), and hemorrhagic gastritis (n=3). Active bleeding requiring intervention was detected in only one patient; therapeutic band ligation was applied to only 1 (2%) of all patients. The most common etiologies of bleeding were gastric/duodenal ulcer (n=9), erosive gastritis (n=4), and hemorrhagic gastritis (n=3). In terms of statistical significance, it was observed that the rate of steroid treatment (77% vs. 39%) and the number of days of steroid treatment were higher in non-survivor group. CONCLUSION: UGIB is less common in COVID-19 patients compared to other hospitalized patients. However, it significantly increases mortality. Mortality risk increases even more in patients using steroids. These risks should be considered in patients under COVID-19 treatment. The majority of the bleeding patients does not require endoscopic treatment and should be managed conservatively. It is worth considering reducing unnecessary endoscopies in the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Disease profiles have changed in the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to compare acute appendicitis cases before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:A total of 130 patients were diagnosed with AA and operated between the days of first COVID-19 case on March 11, 2020, and May 11, 2020, and the same period of the previous year. Data of the patients were extracted from electronic archive of the hospital. Those patients were stratified into two groups; pandemic group and pre-pandemic group. The pandemic group comprised 46 patients and the pre-pandemic group, 84 patients. The two groups were compared in terms of age, gender, duration of symptoms, length of hospital stay, white blood cell count, C-reactive protein levels, and post-operative complications. RESULTS:The median days passed from onset of abdominal pain to submission were 6.5 days in the pandemic period. However, it was 3 days in the pre-pandemic group (p<0.001). Other parameters were not statistically different between the groups (p>0.05). CONCLUSION:During the COVID-19 pandemic period, delay in hospital submissions has attracted attention. However, delayed treatment did not reflect to the clinic as more severe disease.