Diagnosis, management and outcome of splenic torsion; a systematic review of published studies.

INTRODUCTION: Splenic torsion is a rare condition but one that many surgeons will encounter once in their career. Management options are varied but due to the rarity of the condition there are no contemporary evidence-based summaries to inform a treating clinician. We aim to describe patterns of presentation and provide an evidence-based guide to the management. METHODS: A PRISMA structured meta-analysis was conducted of all published cases of splenic torsion and a recent case added from our institution. RESULTS: 408 cases were identified between 1888 and 2021 and a single case added from our institution, 312 cases were sourced from case reports and 96 from 40 case series. 8% of patients had a co-existing congenital anomaly and 28% an identified risk factor for splenic torsion. 82% required emergency surgery. A preoperative diagnosis is becoming more common, reaching 80% in 2020's. While spleen conserving surgery is feasible using a variety of techniques. splenectomy was the definitive management for the majority (82%). On histopatholy no occult disease was identified and a significant number of resected spleens were potentially viable; 32% were reported to be normal or congested and 14% demonstrated only partial or focal necrosis. DISCUSSION: Despite the significant publication bias implied by the methodology this is a large dataset in a rare condition. Splenic torsion frequently occurs in a premorbid population. The presence of a palpable mass in the context of abdominal pain should increase suspicion and trigger cross sectional imaging. Conservation of the spleen, using the techniques discussed, should be seriously considered.

Management of post appendicectomy intra-abdominal collections: A volumetric cut off for drainage?

BACKGROUND: Intra-abdominal collections (IAC) are a common complication following appendicectomy, one of the most commonly performed emergency abdominal procedures in childhood. The option to drain a collection is frequently available but not always required. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of medically and procedurally-managed post appendicectomy IACs and suggest a method of standardising the need for intervention. METHODS: A single centre, retrospective review of children aged ≤ 16 years presenting between 2014 and 2019 was performed. Patient demographics, management, and outcome data were collected. IAC volume and surface area were calculated assuming a prolate spheroid or true ellipsoid depending on the number of dimensions reported. RESULTS: 60 patients (18%) of 334 patients developed an IAC post appendicectomy. Medical management was undertaken in 44 (73%), drainage in 12 (20%), and surgical washout in 4 (7%). Collection size was associated with failure of medical management: maximum diameter (p = 0.028), volume (p = 0.002), and surface area (p = 0.001). Collections with a volume of 2 ml/kg were significantly less likely to fail medical management than larger collections (0/33 vs 6/11; p < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: Not all post appendicectomy IACs require drainage. The relationship between collection volume and need for drainage is more closely assessed using a volume calculation rather than a single dimension measurement, particularly when adjusted for weight of the child. A cut off of 2 ml/kg appears to be a good objective measure for intervention and provides a communication tool for discussion amongst the multidisciplinary team. Prospectively collected multicentre data on this subject would be timely. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.