Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: The neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (NLR) has demonstrated prognostic value in various malignant conditions, including gastric adenocarcinoma. However, chemotherapy may affect NLR.

Objectives: To evaluate the prognostic value of NLR as an accessory decision-making tool in terms of operating patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer.

Methods: We collected oncologic, perioperative, and survival data of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent curative intent gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy between 2009 and 2016. The NLR was calculated from preoperative laboratory tests and classified as high (> 4) and low (≤ 4). The t-test, chi-square, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and Cox multivariate regression models were used to assess associations of clinical, histologic, and hematological variables with survival.

Results: For 124 patients the median follow-up was 23 months (range 1–88). High NLR was associated with greater rate of local complication (r=0.268, P < 0.01). The rate of major complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥ 3) was higher in the high NLR group (28% vs. 9%, P = 0.022). Among the 53 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, those with low NLR had significantly improved disease-free survival (DFS) (49.7 vs. 27.7 months, P = 0.025). Low NLR was not significantly associated with overall survival (mean survival, 51.2 vs. 42.3 months, P = 0.19). Multivariate regression identified NLR group (P = 0.013), male gender (P = 0.04), and body mass index (P = 0.026) as independently associated with DFS.

Conclusions: Among gastric cancer patients planned for curative intent surgery who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy, NLR may have prognostic value, particularly regarding DFS and postoperative complications.

Background: Emergency surgical repair is the standard approach to the management of an incarcerated abdominal wall hernia (IAWH). In cases of very high-risk patients, manual closed reduction (MCR) of IAWH may prevent the need for emergency surgery.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety, success rate, and complications of MCR in the management of IAWH conducted in an emergency department.

Methods: The data of all patients who underwent MCR between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively collected. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, clinical parameters, and management during the hospitalization were retrieved from the medical charts.

Results: Overall, 548 patients underwent MCR during the study period. The success rate was 25.4% (139 patients). One patient had a complication that required a laparotomy 2 days after his discharge. A recurrent incarceration occurred in 23%, 60% of them underwent successful repeated MCR and the others underwent emergency surgery. Six patients (1.4%) had a bowel perforation after a failed MCR.

Conclusions: MCR can be performed safely in the emergency department and should be consider as an option to treat IAWH, especially in high operative risk patients

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak had an effect on healthcare.

Objectives: To evaluate the presentation and management of patients with acute appendicitis.

Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting with acute appendicitis to the emergency department of a large tertiary center during March and April 2020. Clinical features, diagnostic workup, and management were compared.

Results: Seventy-four patients presented with acute appendicitis during the pandemic compared to 60 patients during the same time the year before. There were no significant differences in patient demographics: age (P = 0.65), gender (P = 0.73), smoking status (P = 0.48). During COVID-19 patients were more likely to complain of right lower quadrant pain (100% vs. 78.3%, P < 0.01). Rates of surgical treatment was similar (83.8% vs. 81.7%, P = 1); mean operative time was longer during COVID-19 (63 ± 23 vs. 52 ± 26 minutes, P = 0.03). There were no significant differences in intra-operative findings including the presence of appendiceal perforation (16.3% vs. 14.5%, P = 0.8), abscess (6.1% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.73), or involvement of cecum or terminal ileum (14.28% vs. 19.63%, P = 1). Postoperative treatment with antibiotics was more prevalent during COVID-19 (37.1% vs. 18%, P = 0.04). Length of stay (1.82 ± 2.04 vs. 2.74 ± 4.68, P = 0.2) and readmission rates (6% vs. 11.3%, P =0.51) were similar.

Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect the presentation, clinical course, management, and outcomes of patients presenting with acute appendicitis.

Background: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic changed medical environments worldwide.

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trauma-related visits to the emergency department (ED).

Methods: A single tertiary center retrospective study was conducted that compared ED attendance of patients with injury-related morbidity between March 2020 (COVID-19 outbreak) and pre-COVID-19 periods: February 2020 and the same 2 months in 2018 and 2019.

Results: Overall, 6513 patients were included in the study. During the COVID-19 outbreak, the daily number of patients visiting the ED for acute trauma declined by 40% compared to the average in previous months (P < 0.01). A strong negative correlation was found between the number of trauma-related ED visits and the log number of confirmed cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in Israel (Pearson's r = -0.63, P < 0.01). In the COVID-19 period there was a significant change in the proportion of elderly patients (7% increase, P = 0.002), admissions ratio (12% increase, P < 0.001), and patients brought by emergency medical services (10% increase, P < 0.001). The number of motor vehicle accident related injury declined by 45% (P < 0.01).

Conclusions: A significant reduction in the number of trauma patients presenting to the ED occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet trauma-related admissions were on the rise

Background: Evaluation of low rectal anastomosis is often recommended prior to ostomy closure, but the efficacy of such evaluations is uncertain.

Objectives: To assess whether routine colonic preoperative evaluation has an effect on postoperative ileostomy closure results.

Methods: We performed a retrospective study evaluating all patients who underwent ileostomy closure over 9 years. Patient demographics, clinical, surgical details, and surgical outcomes were recorded and analyzed.

Results: The study comprised 116 patients who underwent ileostomy closure, of them 65 were male (56%) with a mean age of 61 years (range 20–91). Overall, 98 patients (84.4%) underwent colonic preoperative evaluation prior to ileostomy closure. A contrast enema was performed on 61 patients (62.2%). Abnormal preoperative results were observed in 12 patients (12.2%). The overall complication rate was 35.3% (41 patients). No differences in postoperative outcome was observed in patient gender (P = 1), age (P = 0.96), body mass index (P = 0.24), American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = 0.21), and the Charlson Comorbidity Index score (P = 0.93). Among patients who had postoperative complications, we did not observe a difference between patients who underwent preoperative evaluation compared to those who did not (P = 0.42). No differences were observed among patients with preoperative findings interpreted as normal or abnormal (P = 1). The time difference between ileostomy creation and closure had no effect on the ileostomy closure outcome (P = 0.34).

Conclusions: Abnormal findings in preoperative colonic evaluation prior to ileostomy closure were not associated with worse postoperative outcome.