Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes. METHODS: We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations. RESULTS: The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Evaluation of Contingency Telemedical Support to Improve Casualty Care at a Simulated Military Intermediate Resuscitation Facility: The EM-ANGEL Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether Contingency Telemedical Support (CTS) improves the success rate and efficiency of primary care providers performing critical actions during simulated combat trauma resuscitation. Critical actions included advanced airway, chest decompression, extremity hemorrhage control, hypothermia prevention, antibiotics and analgesics, and hypotensive resuscitation, among others. BACKGROUND: Recent studies report improved survival associated with skilled triage and treatment in the out-of-hospital/preoperative phase of combat casualty care. Historically, ground combat units are assigned primary care physicians and physician assistants as medical staff, due to resource limitations. Although they are recognized as optimal resuscitators, demand for military trauma surgeons and emergency physicians exceeds supply and is unlikely to improve in the near term. METHODS: A prospective trial of telemedical mentoring during a casualty resuscitation encounter was studied using a high-fidelity patient simulator (HFPS). Subjects were randomized and formed into experimental (CTS) or control teams. CTS team leaders were equipped with a headset/microphone interface and telementored by a combat-experienced emergency physician or trauma surgeon. A standardized, scripted clinical scenario and HFPS were used with 14 critical actions. At completion, subjects were surveyed. Statistical approach included contingency table analysis, two-tailed t-test, and correlation coefficient. This study was reviewed and approved by our institutional review board (IRB). RESULTS: Eighteen CTS teams and 16 control teams were studied. By intention-to-treat ITT analysis, 89% of CTS teams versus 56% of controls completed all life-threatening inventions (LSIs) (p<.01); 78% versus 19% completed all critical actions (p<.01); and 89% versus 56% established advanced airways within 8 minutes (p<.06). Average time to completion in minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 95) was 12 minutes (10?14) for CTS versus 18 (16?20) for controls, with 75% of control teams not completing all critical actions. CONCLUSION: In this model, real-time telementoring of simulated trauma resuscitation was feasible and improved accuracy and efficiency of non?emergency-trained resuscitators. Clinical validation and replicated study of these findings for guiding remote damage control resuscitation are warranted.

Surgery of chronic pancreatitis: chronicle of confusion and despair.

The evolution of surgery for pancreatitic disease has been arduous owing to the technical difficulties of addressing the organ and the lack of understanding the mechanisms of the disease processes involving it. In particular, the tardy advance of surgery in the management of chronic pancreatitis exemplifies these problems. Because no specific target has been identified, mechanical intervention has for the most part reflected intuitive or creative attempts to address perceived pathologic issues such as sphincter disease, calculi, and fibrotic masses. The past and present remain a confusion of etiologies and diagnoses. Treatment remains for the most part a dramatically disappointing scenario, and both patients and their physicians are frustrated. Although the remarkable technologic progress exhibited by the odyssey of operative strategy from simple drainage, to ductal drainage, to the complex refinements of extensive resection is a testimonial to surgical skill and determination, it has been nullified to a large extent by the inability to address the initiating factors of the disease or alter those that engender progress of the pathology. It is not unreasonable to recognize that we are facing an enigmatic disease process generically classified as "chronic pancreatitis" for want of any more specific terminology. In the light of our current knowledge and experience, intervention should probably be modest in the extreme and limited to centers and individuals with expertise or who are involved in specific studies to determine the precise criteria and techniques necessary for optimum intervention. It is important that when charting such a course future surgeons involved in the management of chronic pancreatitis have an understanding of the historical evolution of the subject. As Theodor Billroth, the greatest of the surgical innovators remarked: "An awareness of the past is necessary to comprehend the present, and without it no consideration of the future is possible."