Ari Leppäniemi's research while affiliated with Helsinki University Central Hospital and other places

Background Identification of patients at high risk of surgical-site infections may allow surgeons to minimize associated morbidity. However, there are significant concerns regarding the methodological quality and transportability of models previously developed. The aim of this study was to develop a novel score to predict 30-day surgical-site infection risk after gastrointestinal surgery across a global context and externally validate against existing models. Methods This was a secondary analysis of two prospective international cohort studies: GlobalSurg-1 (July–November 2014) and GlobalSurg-2 (January–July 2016). Consecutive adults undergoing gastrointestinal surgery were eligible. Model development was performed using GlobalSurg-2 data, with novel and previous scores externally validated using GlobalSurg-1 data. The primary outcome was 30-day surgical-site infections, with two predictive techniques explored: penalized regression (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (‘LASSO’)) and machine learning (extreme gradient boosting (‘XGBoost’)). Final model selection was based on prognostic accuracy and clinical utility. Results There were 14 019 patients (surgical-site infections = 12.3%) for derivation and 8464 patients (surgical-site infections = 11.4%) for external validation. The LASSO model was selected due to similar discrimination to extreme gradient boosting (AUC 0.738 (95% c.i. 0.725 to 0.750) versus 0.737 (95% c.i. 0.709 to 0.765)), but greater explainability. The final score included six variables: country income, ASA grade, diabetes, and operative contamination, approach, and duration. Model performance remained good on external validation (AUC 0.730 (95% c.i. 0.715 to 0.744); calibration intercept −0.098 and slope 1.008) and demonstrated superior performance to the external validation of all previous models. Conclusion The ‘Global Surgical-Site Infection’ score allows accurate prediction of the risk of surgical-site infections with six simple variables that are routinely available at the time of surgery across global settings. This can inform the use of intraoperative and postoperative interventions to modify the risk of surgical-site infections and minimize associated harm.

Background The trauma mortality rate is higher in the elderly compared with younger patients. Ageing is associated with physiological changes in multiple systems and correlated with frailty. Frailty is a risk factor for mortality in elderly trauma patients. We aim to provide evidence-based guidelines for the management of geriatric trauma patients to improve it and reduce futile procedures. Methods Six working groups of expert acute care and trauma surgeons reviewed extensively the literature according to the topic and the PICO question assigned. Statements and recommendations were assessed according to the GRADE methodology and approved by a consensus of experts in the field at the 10th international congress of the WSES in 2023. Results The management of elderly trauma patients requires knowledge of ageing physiology, a focused triage, including drug history, frailty assessment, nutritional status, and early activation of trauma protocol to improve outcomes. Acute trauma pain in the elderly has to be managed in a multimodal analgesic approach, to avoid side effects of opioid use. Antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended in penetrating (abdominal, thoracic) trauma, in severely burned and in open fractures elderly patients to decrease septic complications. Antibiotics are not recommended in blunt trauma in the absence of signs of sepsis and septic shock. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with LMWH or UFH should be administrated as soon as possible in high and moderate-risk elderly trauma patients according to the renal function, weight of the patient and bleeding risk. A palliative care team should be involved as soon as possible to discuss the end of life in a multidisciplinary approach considering the patient’s directives, family feelings and representatives' desires, and all decisions should be shared. Conclusions The management of elderly trauma patients requires knowledge of ageing physiology, a focused triage based on assessing frailty and early activation of trauma protocol to improve outcomes. Geriatric Intensive Care Units are needed to care for elderly and frail trauma patients in a multidisciplinary approach to decrease mortality and improve outcomes. Graphical abstract

Background The use of computed tomography at the early stage of acute appendicitis can lead to overdiagnosis and predispose patients unnecessarily to ionising radiation. Adult Appendicitis Score (AAS) can be used to select patients for imaging. Observation and re-scoring in the DIAMOND trial reduced the need for imaging. In this study, we wanted to determine if the AAS change (ΔAAS) can be used as a diagnostic tool to select patients for imaging even more precisely. Methods Eighty-eight patients with early equivocal appendicitis entered the observation arm in the DIAMOND trial. The data of these patients were reanalysed, and ΔAAS during the observation was calculated. The baseline AAS, final AAS, and the CRP change (ΔCRP) were selected as reference standards. Results Eighty-three patients with complete data were analysed. The AUROC values: ΔAAS 0.932 (95%CI 0.868–0.996), baseline AAS 0.629 (95%CI 0.498–0.760), final AAS 0.936 (95%CI 0.886–0.987), and ΔCRP 0.796 (95%CI 0.696–0.897). From receiver operating characteristic curves, we identified the limits for low (ΔAAS ≤ -2), intermediate (ΔAAS − 1 − 0), and high (ΔAAS ≥ 1) probability of appendicitis. The negative predictive value of the low probability group and the positive predictive value of the high probability group for acute appendicitis were 97% and 94%, respectively. Conclusions Patients with equivocal signs of appendicitis could benefit from short observation and calculation of ΔAAS to reduce overdiagnosis and exposure to excessive imaging. Trial registration The DIAMOND trial was originally registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02742402) on April 7th, 2016 and approved by the institutional review board and the ethical committee of Helsinki University Hospital (reference number 27/13/03/02/2016).

Introduction A textbook outcome patient is one in which the operative course passes uneventful, without complications, readmission or mortality. There is a lack of publications in terms of TO on acute cholecystitis. Objetive The objective of this study is to analyze the achievement of TO in patients with urgent early cholecystectomy (UEC) for Acute Cholecystitis. and to identify which factors are related to achieving TO. Materials and methods This is a post hoc study of the SPRiMACC study. It´s a prospective multicenter observational study run by WSES. The criteria to define TO in urgent early cholecystectomy (TOUEC) were no 30-day mortality, no 30-day postoperative complications, no readmission within 30 days, and hospital stay ≤ 7 days (75th percentile), and full laparoscopic surgery. Patients who met all these conditions were taken as presenting a TOUEC. Outcomes 1246 urgent early cholecystectomies for ACC were included. In all, 789 patients (63.3%) achieved all TOUEC parameters, while 457 (36.6%) failed to achieve one or more parameters and were considered non-TOUEC. The patients who achieved TOUEC were younger had significantly lower scores on all the risk scales analyzed. In the serological tests, TOUEC patients had lower values for in a lot of variables than non-TOUEC patients. The TOUEC group had lower rates of complicated cholecystitis. Considering operative time, a shorter duration was also associated with a higher probability of reaching TOUEC. Conclusion Knowledge of the factors that influence the TOUEC can allow us to improve our results in terms of textbook outcome.

Background and aims: Long pre-hospital delay substantially increases the likelihood of perforated appendicitis. This study aimed to find patient-related factors affecting this delay. Methods: A survey was conducted for patients with acute appendicitis after appendectomy. The participants were asked about their path to the surgical center and socioeconomic status. Variables affecting delays and the rate of complicated appendicitis were analyzed. Results: The study included 510 patients; 157 (31%) had complicated appendicitis with a median prehospital delay of 42 h. In patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, the delay was 21 h, p < .001. Forty-six (29%) patients with complicated appendicitis were not referred to the hospital after the first doctor's visit. The multivariate analysis discovered factors associated with long pre-hospital delay: age 40-64 years (OR 1.63 (95% CI 1.06-2.52); compared to age 18-39), age more than 64 years (OR 2.84 (95% CI 1.18-6.80); compared to age 18-39), loss of appetite (OR 2.86 (95% CI 1.64-4.98)), fever (OR 1.66 (95% CI 1.08-2.57)), non-referral by helpline nurse (OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.15-3.53)) and non-referral at first doctors visit (OR 2.16 (95% CI 1.32-3.53)). Age 40-64 years (OR 2.41 (95% CI 1.50-3.88)), age more than 64 years (OR 8.79 (95% CI 2.19-35.36)), fever (OR 1.83 (95% CI 1.15-2.89)) and non-referral at first doctors visit (OR 1.90 (95% CI 1.14-3.14)) were also risk factors for complicated appendicitis. Conclusions: Advanced age, fever and failure to suspect acute appendicitis in primary care are associated with prolonged pre-hospital delay and complicated appendicitis.

Background It has previously been reported that there are similar reoperation rates after elective colorectal surgery but higher failure-to-rescue (FTR) rates in low-volume hospitals (LVHs) versus high-volume hospitals (HVHs). This study assessed the effect of hospital volume on reoperation rate and FTR after reoperation following elective colorectal surgery in a matched cohort. Methods Population-based retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult patients undergoing reoperation for a complication after an elective, non-centralized colorectal operation between 2006 and 2017 in 11 hospitals. Hospitals were divided into either HVHs (3 hospitals, median ≥126 resections per year) or LVHs (8 hospitals, <126 resections per year). Patients were propensity score–matched (PSM) for baseline characteristics as well as indication and type of elective surgery. Primary outcome was FTR. Results A total of 6428 and 3020 elective colorectal resections were carried out in HVHs and LVHs, of which 217 (3.4%) and 165 (5.5%) underwent reoperation (P < 0.001), respectively. After PSM, 142 patients undergoing reoperation remained in both HVH and LVH groups for final analyses. FTR rate was 7.7% in HVHs and 10.6% in LVHs (P = 0.410). The median Comprehensive Complication Index was 21.8 in HVHs and 29.6 in LVHs (P = 0.045). There was no difference in median ICU-free days, length of stay, the risk for permanent ostomy or overall survival between the groups. Conclusion The reoperation rate and postoperative complication burden was higher in LVHs with no significant difference in FTR compared with HVHs.

Background Despite advances and improvements in the management of surgical patients, emergency and trauma surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality. This may be due in part to delays in definitive surgical management in the operating room (OR). There is a lack of studies focused on OR prioritization and resource allocation in emergency surgery. The Operating Room management for emergency Surgical Activity (ORSA) study was conceived to assess the management of operating theatres and resources from a global perspective among expert international acute care surgeons. Method The ORSA study was conceived as an international web survey. The questionnaire was composed of 23 multiple-choice and open questions. Data were collected over 3 months. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Results One hundred forty-seven emergency and acute care surgeons answered the questionnaire; the response rate was 58.8%. The majority of the participants come from Europe. One hundred nineteen surgeons (81%; 119/147) declared to have at least one emergency OR in their hospital; for the other 20/147 surgeons (13.6%), there is not a dedicated emergency operating room. Forty-six (68/147)% of the surgeons use the elective OR to perform emergency procedures during the day. The planning of an emergency surgical procedure is done by phone by 70% (104/147) of the surgeons. Conclusions There is no dedicated emergency OR in the majority of hospitals internationally. Elective surgical procedures are usually postponed or even cancelled to perform emergency surgery. It is a priority to validate an effective universal triag-ing and scheduling system to allocate emergency surgical procedures. The new Timing in Acute Care Surgery (TACS) was recently proposed and validated by a Delphi consensus as a clear and reproducible triage tool to timely perform an emergency surgical procedure according to the clinical severity of the surgical disease. The new TACS needs to be prospectively validated in clinical practice. Logistics have to be assessed using a multidisciplinary approach to improve patients' safety, optimise the use of resources, and decrease costs.

Background Despite advances and improvements in the management of surgical patients, emergency and trauma surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality. This may be due in part to delays in definitive surgical management in the operating room (OR). There is a lack of studies focused on OR prioritization and resource allocation in emergency surgery. The Operating Room management for emergency Surgical Activity (ORSA) study was conceived to assess the management of operating theatres and resources from a global perspective among expert international acute care surgeons. Method The ORSA study was conceived as an international web survey. The questionnaire was composed of 23 multiple-choice and open questions. Data were collected over 3 months. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Results One hundred forty-seven emergency and acute care surgeons answered the questionnaire; the response rate was 58.8%. The majority of the participants come from Europe. One hundred nineteen surgeons (81%; 119/147) declared to have at least one emergency OR in their hospital; for the other 20/147 surgeons (13.6%), there is not a dedicated emergency operating room. Forty-six (68/147)% of the surgeons use the elective OR to perform emergency procedures during the day. The planning of an emergency surgical procedure is done by phone by 70% (104/147) of the surgeons. Conclusions There is no dedicated emergency OR in the majority of hospitals internationally. Elective surgical procedures are usually postponed or even cancelled to perform emergency surgery. It is a priority to validate an effective universal triag-ing and scheduling system to allocate emergency surgical procedures. The new Timing in Acute Care Surgery (TACS) was recently proposed and validated by a Delphi consensus as a clear and reproducible triage tool to timely perform an emergency surgical procedure according to the clinical severity of the surgical disease. The new TACS needs to be prospectively validated in clinical practice. Logistics have to be assessed using a multidisciplinary approach to improve patients' safety, optimise the use of resources, and decrease costs.

Despite advances and improvements in the management of surgical patients, emergency and trauma surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality. This may be due in part to delays in definitive surgical management in the operating room (OR). There is a lack of studies focused on OR prioritization and resource allocation in emergency surgery. The Operating Room management for emergency Surgical Activity (ORSA) study was conceived to assess the management of operating theatres and resources from a global perspective among expert international acute care surgeons. The ORSA study was conceived as an international web survey. The questionnaire was composed of 23 multiple-choice and open questions. Data were collected over 3 months. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. One hundred forty-seven emergency and acute care surgeons answered the questionnaire; the response rate was 58.8%. The majority of the participants come from Europe. One hundred nineteen surgeons (81%; 119/147) declared to have at least one emergency OR in their hospital; for the other 20/147 surgeons (13.6%), there is not a dedicated emergency operating room. Forty-six (68/147)% of the surgeons use the elective OR to perform emergency procedures during the day. The planning of an emergency surgical procedure is done by phone by 70% (104/147) of the surgeons. There is no dedicated emergency OR in the majority of hospitals internationally. Elective surgical procedures are usually postponed or even cancelled to perform emergency surgery. It is a priority to validate an effective universal triaging and scheduling system to allocate emergency surgical procedures. The new Timing in Acute Care Surgery (TACS) was recently proposed and validated by a Delphi consensus as a clear and reproducible triage tool to timely perform an emergency surgical procedure according to the clinical severity of the surgical disease. The new TACS needs to be prospectively validated in clinical practice. Logistics have to be assessed using a multi-disciplinary approach to improve patients' safety, optimise the use of resources, and decrease costs.

Background Despite advances and improvements in the management of surgical patients, emergency and trauma surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality. This may be due in part to delays in definitive surgical management in the operating room (OR). There is a lack of studies focused on OR prioritization and resource allocation in emergency surgery. The Operating Room management for emergency Surgical Activity (ORSA) study was conceived to assess the management of operating theatres and resources from a global perspective among expert international acute care surgeons. Method The ORSA study was conceived as an international web survey. The questionnaire was composed of 23 multiple-choice and open questions. Data were collected over 3 months. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous. Results One hundred forty-seven emergency and acute care surgeons answered the questionnaire; the response rate was 58.8%. The majority of the participants come from Europe. One hundred nineteen surgeons (81%; 119/147) declared to have at least one emergency OR in their hospital; for the other 20/147 surgeons (13.6%), there is not a dedicated emergency operating room. Forty-six (68/147)% of the surgeons use the elective OR to perform emergency procedures during the day. The planning of an emergency surgical procedure is done by phone by 70% (104/147) of the surgeons. Conclusions There is no dedicated emergency OR in the majority of hospitals internationally. Elective surgical procedures are usually postponed or even cancelled to perform emergency surgery. It is a priority to validate an effective universal triag-ing and scheduling system to allocate emergency surgical procedures. The new Timing in Acute Care Surgery (TACS) was recently proposed and validated by a Delphi consensus as a clear and reproducible triage tool to timely perform an emergency surgical procedure according to the clinical severity of the surgical disease. The new TACS needs to be prospectively validated in clinical practice. Logistics have to be assessed using a multidisciplinary approach to improve patients' safety, optimise the use of resources, and decrease costs.