Development and Validation of the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity 2.0.

Importance: When considering nonoperative treatment in a patient with acute appendicitis, it is crucial to accurately rule out complicated appendicitis. The Atema score, also referred to as the Scoring System of Appendicitis Severity (SAS), has been designed to differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis but has not been prospectively externally validated. Objective: To externally validate the SAS and, in case of failure, to develop an improved SAS (2.0) for estimating the probability of complicated appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective study included adult patients who underwent operations for suspected acute appendicitis at 11 hospitals in the Netherlands between January 2020 and August 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appendicitis severity was predicted according to the SAS in 795 patients and its sensitivity and negative predictive value (NPV) for complicated appendicitis were calculated. Since the predefined targets of 95% for both were not met, the SAS 2.0 was developed using the same cohort. This clinical prediction model was developed with multivariable regression using clinical, biochemical, and imaging findings. The SAS 2.0 was externally validated in a temporal validation cohort consisting of 565 patients. Results: In total, 1360 patients were included, 463 of whom (34.5%) had complicated appendicitis. Validation of the SAS resulted in a sensitivity of 83.6% (95% CI, 78.8-87.6) and an NPV of 85.0% (95% CI, 80.6-88.8), meaning that the predefined targets were not achieved. Therefore, the SAS 2.0 was developed, internally validated (C statistic, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.89), and subsequently externally validated (C statistic, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.89). The SAS 2.0 was designed to calculate a patient's individual probability of having complicated appendicitis along with a 95% CI. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, external validation of the SAS fell short in accurately distinguishing complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. The newly developed and externally validated SAS 2.0 was able to assess an individual patient's probability of having complicated appendicitis with high accuracy in patients with acute appendicitis. Use of this patient-specific risk assessment tool can be helpful when considering and discussing nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis with patients.

Yield of Screening for COVID-19 in Asymptomatic Patients Before Elective or Emergency Surgery Using Chest CT and RT-PCR (SCOUT): Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to ∼6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.

Sneeze and pop: a ruptured varicocele; analysis of literature, guided by a well-documented case-report.

BACKGROUND: An acute scrotal hematoma, secondary to a spontaneous rupture of a varicocele is still a rare presentation in daily practice. However, multiple case reports have been reported. Sudden increase in abdominal pressure, resulting to an increased venous pressure can lead to a rupture of the varicocele. Literature search shows that due to uncertainty of the diagnosis, explorative surgery is often performed, sometimes resulting in unnecessary orchiectomies. The objective of this study was to determine classical clinical presentation of patients with a spontaneous rupture of a varicocele, determine the diagnostic procedure, and give an insight in the follow-up. CASE PRESENTATION: We present a case of a 24-year old male with acute scrotal swelling after sneezing. Subsequently, we carried out a systematic literature search to identify all eligible studies to determine classic clinical presentation of spontaneous ruptures of a varicocele. CONCLUSION: The literature search shows that clinical presentation of idiopathic spontaneous scrotal hematomas is similar to testicular torsion, epididymo-orchitis, malignancy, or (incarcerated) inguinal hernia making differential diagnosis difficult. Especially when there has been increased abdominal pressure or strenuous activity preceding the symptoms, and the swelling is left sided, it should be included in the differential diagnosis for patient with acute inguinoscrotal swelling. Colour Doppler-Ultrasonography is recommended to distinguish between other causes of acute scrotum. The hematoma is usual self-limiting, justifying conservative treatment. Early surgical intervention is indicated with signs of ischaemia due to obstruction, infection of the hematoma, or uncertain diagnosis (i.e. malignancy). However, physicians should be cautious with direct exploration, as it led to unnecessary orchiectomy in 25% of patients. The hematoma can increase in size up to 3 months post-event, and it can take up to 15 months to completely resolve.