1,721,434 research outputs found
Acute Appendicectomy or Conservative Treatment for Complicated Appendicitis (Phlegmon or Abscess)? A Systematic Review by Updated Traditional and Cumulative Meta-Analysis
No full textThe existing evidence on the treatment of complicated appendicitis favors conservative treatment rather than acute appendicectomy. Update traditional meta-analysis and consequently cumulative meta-analysis was performed to track the accumulation of evidence over time
Primary Segmental Omental Torsion, mimicking acute appendicitis
Full text linkPrimary segmental omental torsion (PSOT) is a very rare cause of acute abdominal pain, and it may often imitate the clinical picture of acute appendicitis. In instances of acute abdominal pain without anorexia, nausea, and vomiting, omental torsion should be included in the differential diagnosis. Any misdiagnosis may lead to major complications such as intraabdominal abscesses and adhesions. A 63-year-old overweight man with a body mass index (BMI) of 41 Kg/m2 presented to the emergency department on a remote island with acute abdominal pain. His medical history included type 2 diabetes mellitus managed with insulin, essential hypertension, osteoarthritis, and no previous abdominal operations. He reported a sharp pain originating in the epigastrium and the right hypochondrium that started five days prior. Physical examination revealed rebound tenderness and guarding across the abdomen with a positive McBurney sign. However, the patient did not report vomiting and was not nauseous. Vital signs were as follows: blood pressure 116/56 mmHg, heart rate 98 beats/min, respiratory rate 19 breaths/min, and a temperature of 38.2 0C. Laboratory results showed a white blood cell count of 10.6, neutrophils of 8.11, C-reactive protein (CRP) 74 mg/l, haemoglobin11.6 g/dl, and hematocrit 36.9%. Due to the absence of a radiographer at the hospital during that period, no imaging investigations were conducted. Diagnostic laparoscopy demonstrated diffused hemoperitoneum and necrotic mass at the site of the hepatic flexure. Initially suspected to be an advanced colon cancer, the decision was made to proceed with open surgery. The necrotic segment of the omentum was found at the right superior point of attachment of the omentum to the hepatic flexure. Consequently, the necrotic segment of the omentum was resected. A thorough investigation of the abdominal cavity did not detect any other abnormalities or pathologies. The patient recovered uneventfully and was transferred to the surgical ward. Torsion of the omentum is a very rare cause of acute abdominal pain. This case highlights the necessity of considering PSOT in the differential diagnosis of acute abdominal pain, especially in cases where symptoms are suggestive of appendicitis but diagnostic findings are negative
open colectomy for locally advanced T4 colonic cancer: meta-analysis of clinical and oncological outcomes
No full textLaparoscopy for perforated acute diverticulitis of the sigmoid colon: navigating the evidence
No full textRandomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated appendicitis: Time to change the goal of our research?
No full textRe: Male gender is a risk factor for recurrent appendicitis following nonoperative treatment
No full textMale gender is a risk factor for recurrent appendicitis
following nonoperative treatmen
Correction: Evolving Trends in the Management of Acute Appendicitis During COVID-19 Waves: The ACIE Appy II Study
No full textEvolving Trends in the Management of Acute Appendicitis During COVID-19 Waves: The ACIE Appy II Study
No full textBACKGROUND: In 2020, ACIE Appy study showed that COVID-19 pandemic heavily affected the management of patients with acute appendicitis (AA) worldwide, with an increased rate of non-operative management (NOM) strategies and a trend toward open surgery due to concern of virus transmission by laparoscopy and controversial recommendations on this issue. The aim of this study was to survey again the same group of surgeons to assess if any difference in management attitudes of AA had occurred in the later stages of the outbreak. METHODS: From August 15 to September 30, 2021, an online questionnaire was sent to all 709 participants of the ACIE Appy study. The questionnaire included questions on personal protective equipment (PPE), local policies and screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection, NOM, surgical approach and disease presentations in 2021. The results were compared with the results from the previous study. RESULTS: A total of 476 answers were collected (response rate 67.1%). Screening policies were significatively improved with most patients screened regardless of symptoms (89.5% vs. 37.4%) with PCR and antigenic test as the preferred test (74.1% vs. 26.3%). More patients tested positive before surgery and commercial systems were the preferred ones to filter smoke plumes during laparoscopy. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was the first option in the treatment of AA, with a declined use of NOM. CONCLUSION: Management of AA has improved in the last waves of pandemic. Increased evidence regarding SARS-COV-2 infection along with a timely healthcare systems response has been translated into tailored attitudes and a better care for patients with AA worldwide
Laparoscopic versus open complete mesocolic excision: a systematic review by updated meta-analysis
No full textRecent evidence has proven the non-inferiority of laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (LCME) to open complete mesocolic excision (OCME) with regard to feasibility and oncological safety. However, the differences in survival benefits between the 2 procedures have not been assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether or not one procedure was superior to the other using updated meta-analysis. A systematic search for relevant literature was performed in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane library and Google scholar databases. This meta-analysis included retrospective studies and one randomised controlled trial comparing LCME to OSCME. LCME to OCME was evaluated using updated meta-analysis. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodologic quality of the studies. Fixed- and random-effects models were used, and survival outcomes were assessed using the inverse variance hazard ratio (HR) method. Operative time was significantly shorter in the OCME cohort than in the LCME cohort. Blood loss, wound infections, time to flatus, time to oral feeding, and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survivals were better in the LCME cohort than in the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.37 (0.22, 0.65);p = 0.004], [HR = 0.48 (0.31, 0.74);p = 0.008], and [HR = 0.64 (0.45, 0.93);p = 0.02], respectively). No difference in the 1-year disease-free survival (DFS) between the 2 procedures was observed ([HR = 0.68 (0.44, 1.03);p = 0.07]). In contrast, the LCME cohort had better 3- and 5-year DFS rates than those of the OCME cohort ([HR = 0.63 (0.42, 0.97),p = 0.03] and [HR = 0.68 (0.56, 0.83),p = 0.001], respectively). The results of the present study must be interpreted cautiously because the included studies were retrospective from single centres. Therefore, selection, institutional and national bias may have influenced the results. LCME is associated with the faster postoperative recovery and some better potential survival benefits than OCME
- …
