Surgical site infections (SSIs), i.e., surgery-related infections that occur within 30 days after surgery without an implant and within one year if an implant is placed, complicate surgical procedures in up to 10% of cases, but an underestimation of the data is possible since about 50% of SSIs occur after the hospital discharge. Gastrointestinal surgical procedures are among the surgical procedures with the highest risk of SSIs, especially when colon surgery is considered. Data that were collected from children seem to indicate that the risk of SSIs can be higher than in adults. This consensus document describes the use of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in neonates and children that are undergoing abdominal surgery and has the purpose of providing guidance to healthcare professionals who take care of children to avoid unnecessary and dangerous use of antibiotics in these patients. The following surgical procedures were analyzed: (1) gastrointestinal endoscopy; (2) abdominal surgery with a laparoscopic or laparotomy approach; (3) small bowel surgery; (4) appendectomy; (5) abdominal wall defect correction interventions; (6) ileo-colic perforation; (7) colorectal procedures; (8) biliary tract procedures; and (9) surgery on the liver or pancreas. Thanks to the multidisciplinary contribution of experts belonging to the most important Italian scientific societies that take care of neonates and children, this document presents an invaluable reference tool for perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the paediatric and neonatal populations.

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA\'s prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.

Endoscopic procedure is commonly used to make diagnosis or therapy. Endoscopy has risk on the procedure or after the procedure. Patient with antithrombotic therapy, both antiplatelet and/or anticoagulant, for underlying diseases has higher risk for bleeding and thromboembolic events in this procedure. The physician should consider risk and benefit for adjusting the antithrombotic therapy, in addition to minimize bleeding and thromboembolic events. For low risk procedure, adjustments in antithrombotic therapy usually not necessarily needed. For high risk procedure, there are several adjustments based on the type of medication and patient\'s condition in specific. European Society of Gastrointestinal Guidelines Endoscopy (ESGE) and British Society of Gastrointestinal (BSG); American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE); and lastly Asian Pacific Association of Gastroenterology (APAGE) and Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy (APSDE) have published guidelines to help physician to make decisions regarding antithrombotic therapy management during endoscopy. This article compares and contrasts the approach of each guideline, in design to help the decision-making process. However, each patient\'s clinical condition may differ from one to another and should be considered carefully in making a final decision.

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation (ICP) is a severe complication that can occur during both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although 45-60% of ICPs are diagnosed by the endoscopist while performing the colonoscopy, many ICPs are not immediately recognized but are instead suspected on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms that occur after the endoscopic procedure. There are three main therapeutic options for ICPs: endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. The therapeutic approach must vary based on the setting of the diagnosis (intra- or post-colonoscopy), the type of ICP, the characteristics and general status of the patient, the operator\'s level of experience, and surgical device availability. Although ICPs have been the focus of numerous publications, no guidelines have been created to standardize the management of ICPs. The aim of this article is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of ICP, which are intended to be used as a tool to promote global standards of care in case of ICP. These guidelines are not meant to substitute providers\' clinical judgment for individual patients, and they may need to be modified based on the medical team\'s level of experience and the availability of local resources.

BACKGROUND: Pathogens have been transmitted via flexible endoscopes that were reportedly reprocessed in accordance with guidelines.
METHODS: Researchers observed reprocessing activities to ensure guideline compliance in a large gastrointestinal endoscopy unit. Contamination was assessed immediately after bedside cleaning, manual cleaning, high-level disinfection, and overnight storage via visual inspection, aerobic cultures, and tests for adenosine triphosphate (ATP), protein, carbohydrate, and hemoglobin.
RESULTS: All colonoscopes and gastroscopes were reprocessed in accordance with guidelines during the study. Researchers collected and tested samples during 60 encounters with 15 endoscopes. Viable microbes were recovered from bedside-cleaned (92%), manually cleaned (46%), high-level disinfected (64%), and stored (9%) endoscopes. Rapid indicator tests detected contamination (protein, carbohydrate, hemoglobin, or ATP) above benchmarks on bedside-cleaned (100%), manually cleaned (92%), high-level disinfected (73%), and stored (82%) endoscopes. Visible residue was never observed on endoscopes, but it was often seen on materials used to sample endoscopes. Seven endoscopes underwent additional reprocessing in response to positive rapid indicators. Control endoscope channels were free of biologic residue and viable microbes.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite reprocessing in accordance with US guidelines, viable microbes and biologic debris persisted on clinically used gastrointestinal endoscopes, suggesting current reprocessing guidelines are not sufficient to ensure successful decontamination.