WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.Peer reviewe

INTRAOPERATIVE MOTIVE FOR PERFORMING A LAPAROSCOPIC APPENDECTOMY ON A POSTOPERATIVE HISTOLOGICAL PROVEN NORMAL APPENDIX

Background: Diagnostic laparoscopy is the ultimate tool to evaluate the appendix. However, the intraoperative evaluation of the appendix is difficult, as the negative appendectomy rate remains 12%-18%. The aim of this study is to analyze the intraoperative motive for performing a laparoscopic appendectomy of an appendix that was proven to be noninflamed after histological examination. Methods: In 2008 and 2009, in five hospitals, operation reports of all negative laparoscopic appendectomies were retrospectively analyzed in order to assess the intraoperative motive for removing the appendix. Results: A total of 1,465 appendectomies were analyzed with an overall negative appendectomy rate of 9% (132/1,465). In 57% (841/1,465), a laparoscopic appendectomy was performed, with 9% (n = 75) negative appendectomies. In 51% of the negative appendectomies, the visual assessment of the appendix was decisive in performing the appendectomy. In 33%, the surgeon was in doubt whether the appendix was inflamed or normal. In 4%, the surgeon was aware he removed a healthy appendix, and in 9%, an appendectomy was performed for different reasons. Conclusion: In more than half of the microscopic healthy appendices, the surgeon was convinced of the diagnosis appendicitis during surgery. Intraoperative laparoscopic assessment of the appendix can be difficult

VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF SEGMENTAL MUSCLE ULTRASOUND IMAGES IN SPINA BIFIDA APERTA

In spina bifida aperta (SBA), spinal MRI provides a surrogate marker to estimate muscle damage caudal to the myelomeningocele (MMC). This muscle damage by the MMC can be quantified by intra-individual comparison of muscle ultrasound density (MUD) caudal versus cranial to the MMC (dMUD 5 [MUDcaudal-to-the-MMC] - [MUDcranial-to-the-MMC]). Quantitative dMUD assessment requires time, equipment and expertise, whereas it could also be visually determined by differences in muscle echodensity caudal vs. cranial to the MMC (visual-dMUD). If visual and quantitative dMUD correspond, visual dMUD assessment could provide a clinical screening parameter. In 100 SBA muscle ultrasound recordings of patients with various MMC levels, we aimed to compare quantitative dMUD (dMUD = [MUDcalf-muscle/S1] - [MUDquadriceps-muscle/L2-L4]) with visual dMUD assessments by 20 different observers. Results indicate that quantitative dMUD can be visually detected (sensitivity 86%; specificity 57%), implicating that visual dMUD screening could provide a quick, clinical screening tool for muscle impairment by the MMC. (E-mail: [email protected]) (C) 2012 World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine & Biology

Ranitidine does not affect psoriasis: a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

BACKGROUND: Data from open studies suggest that ranitidine has a beneficial effect on psoriasis and is well tolerated. OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to determine the effectiveness of ranitidine in a 24-week, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-comparing study of 201 patients with psoriasis. METHODS: Patients with moderate to severe psoriasis who had stopped systemic antipsoriatic therapy, including PUVA and UVB, for at least 10 weeks were included. After a washout period of 2 weeks, patients were randomly allocated to use either ranitidine, 150 mg twice a day; ranitidine, 300 mg twice a day; or placebo for up to 24 weeks. Assessment with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index was performed at weeks 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, and 24 after randomization. Reduction of the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score by 70% at the completion of the study was considered a treatment success. RESULTS: The success rates at week 24 in the 300 mg, 600 mg, and placebo groups were 11%, 5%, and 12%, respectively. No significant differences were observed between the three treatment groups at any stage of the study. CONCLUSION: This study provides strong evidence that ranitidine does not affect the skin disease in patients with psoriasi

Reducing the negative appendectomy rate with the laparoscopic appendicitis score; a multicenter prospective cohort and validation study

Background: Approximately nine percent of all acute appendectomies are unintentionally performed on a normal appendix. Failure of treatment (negative appendectomy or missed appendicitis) is associated with higher morbidity and mortality when compared to appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis. The Laparoscopic APPendicitis (LAPP) score was developed in order to systematically evaluate the appendix for the presence of inflammation. This study aims to determine whether the LAPP score reduces the negative appendectomy rate without missing appendicitis. Methods: From September 2013 through May 2016, 322 adult patients presenting with a clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis and an indication for diagnostic laparoscopy were included and analyzed in this multicenter prospective validation study. Depending on the LAPP score, the appendix was either removed (n = 300) or left in situ (n = 22). These patients were compared to a historical control group of 584 patients treated at the same hospitals. The appendix was examined by a pathologist and the negative appendectomy rate was calculated. Results: The negative appendectomy rate was significantly lower when the LAPP score was used (4,7% vs. 8,4%; P = 0,034). None of the patients with a negative LAPP score, in which the appendix remained in situ, developed acute appendicitis within three months. There were no significant differences in operation time, complications, or readmissions. Using the LAPP score was associated with significantly higher rates of preoperative radiological imaging (98% vs. 70%; P <0,001). After adjusting for covariables, including radiological imaging, use of the LAPP score led to fewer treatment failures when compared to not using the LAPP score (OR: 0,48, 95% C.I. 0,251 to 0,914; P = 0,025). Conclusion: The LAPP score is a safe and simple tool to reduce the negative appendectomy rate during laparoscopic surgery without missing cases of acute appendicitis

Teaching African philosophy alongside Western philosophy: Some advice about topics and texts

In this article, I offer concrete suggestions about which topics, texts, positions, arguments and authors from the African philosophical tradition one could usefully put into conversation with ones from the Western, especially the Anglo-American. In particular, I focus on materials that would make for revealing and productive contrasts between the two traditions. My aim is not to argue that one should teach by creating critical dialogue between African and Western philosophers, but rather is to provide strategic advice, supposing that is a sensible goal to adopt

Propensity score-matched analysis of oncological outcome between stent as bridge to surgery and emergency resection in patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction

Background: Although self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left-sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short-term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long-term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS. Methods: Through a national collaborative research project, long-term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left-sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1: 2 propensity score matching. Results: Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS-related perforation rate was 7.7 per cent (17 of 222). Three-year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11-4 and 13.6 per cent (P= 0-457), disease-free survival rates were 58-8 and 52.6 per cent (P= 0-175), and overall survival rates were 74-0 and 68-3 per cent (P= 0.231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23.9 versus 45.3 per cent; P <0-001), especially in elderly patients (29.0 versus 57.9 per cent; P <0-001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11.0 per cent (P= 0.432), disease-free survival rates were 49 and 59.6 per cent (P= 0-717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75.1 per cent (P= 0.529), respectively. Conclusion: Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS-related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision-making for individual patients