Damage Control for renal trauma: the more conservative the surgeon, better for the kidney.

Urologic trauma is frequently reported in patients with penetrating trauma. Currently, the computerized tomography and vascular approach through angiography/embolization are the standard approaches for renal trauma. However, the management of renal or urinary tract trauma in a patient with hemodynamic instability and criteria for emergency laparotomy, is a topic of discussion. This article presents the consensus of the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Group (CTE) from Cali, for the management of penetrating renal and urinary tract trauma through damage control surgery. Intrasurgical perirenal hematoma characteristics, such as if it is expanding or actively bleeding, can be reference for deciding whether a conservative approach with subsequent radiological studies is possible. However, if there is evidence of severe kidney trauma, surgical exploration is mandatory and entails a high probability of requiring a nephrectomy. Urinary tract damage control should be conservative and deferred, because this type of trauma does not represent a risk in acute trauma management.

El trauma renal y de las vías urinarias se presenta con relativa frecuencia en pacientes con trauma penetrante. El estándar actual de manejo es realizar una evaluación imagenológica, por medio de tomografía computarizada y un abordaje vascular, a través de técnicas de angiografía/embolización. Sin embargo, el manejo de un paciente hemodinámicamente inestable con criterios de laparotomía de emergencia, con hallazgos de trauma renal o de vías urinarias es aún tema de discusión. El siguiente articulo presenta el consenso del grupo de Cirugía de Trauma y Emergencias (CTE) de Cali respecto al manejo del trauma penetrante renal y de vías urinarias mediante cirugía de control de daños. Las características intra quirúrgicas del hematoma perirrenal tales como si es expansivo o si tiene signos de sangrado activo, son puntos de referencia para decidir entre un abordaje conservador, por estudios imagenológicos posteriores. En cambio, si existe la sospecha de un trauma renal severo, se debe realizar exploración quirúrgica con alta probabilidad de una nefrectomía. El manejo de control de daños de las vías urinarias debe ser conservador y diferido, la lesión de estos órganos no representa un riesgo en el manejo agudo del trauma.

Damage Control for renal trauma: the more conservative the surgeon, better for the kidney / Control de daños renal: entr e más conservador sea el cirujano mejor para el riñón

Abstract Urologic trauma is frequently reported in patients with penetrating trauma. Currently, the computerized tomography and vascular approach through angiography/embolization are the standard approaches for renal trauma. However, the management of renal or urinary tract trauma in a patient with hemodynamic instability and criteria for emergency laparotomy, is a topic of discussion. This article presents the consensus of the Trauma and Emergency Surgery Group (CTE) from Cali, for the management of penetrating renal and urinary tract trauma through damage control surgery. Intrasurgical perirenal hematoma characteristics, such as if it is expanding or actively bleeding, can be reference for deciding whether a conservative approach with subsequent radiological studies is possible. However, if there is evidence of severe kidney trauma, surgical exploration is mandatory and entails a high probability of requiring a nephrectomy. Urinary tract damage control should be conservative and deferred, because this type of trauma does not represent a risk in acute trauma management.

Resumen El trauma renal y de las vías urinarias se presenta con relativa frecuencia en pacientes con trauma penetrante. El estándar actual de manejo es realizar una evaluación imagenológica, por medio de tomografía computarizada y un abordaje vascular, a través de técnicas de angiografía/embolización. Sin embargo, el manejo de un paciente hemodinámicamente inestable con criterios de laparotomía de emergencia, con hallazgos de trauma renal o de vías urinarias es aún tema de discusión. El siguiente articulo presenta el consenso del grupo de Cirugía de Trauma y Emergencias (CTE) de Cali respecto al manejo del trauma penetrante renal y de vías urinarias mediante cirugía de control de daños. Las características intra quirúrgicas del hematoma perirrenal tales como si es expansivo o si tiene signos de sangrado activo, son puntos de referencia para decidir entre un abordaje conservador, por estudios imagenológicos posteriores. En cambio, si existe la sospecha de un trauma renal severo, se debe realizar exploración quirúrgica con alta probabilidad de una nefrectomía. El manejo de control de daños de las vías urinarias debe ser conservador y diferido, la lesión de estos órganos no representa un riesgo en el manejo agudo del trauma.

Laparoscopic versus open approach for diffuse peritonitis from appendicitis ethiology: a subgroup analysis from the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study.

Diffuse peritonitis represents a life-threatening complication of acute appendicitis (AA). Whether laparoscopy is a safe procedure and presents similar results compared with laparotomy in case of complicated AA is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study is to compare laparoscopic (LA) and open appendectomy (OA) for the management of diffuse peritonitis caused by AA. This is a prospective multicenter cohort study, including 223 patients with diffuse peritonitis from perforated AA, enrolled in the Physiological parameters for Prognosis in Abdominal Sepsis (PIPAS) study from February to May 2018. Two groups were created: LA = 78 patients, mean age 42.51 ± 22.14 years and OA = 145 patients, mean age 38.44 ± 20.95 years. LA was employed in 34.98% of cases. There was no statically significant difference between LA and OA groups in terms of intra-abdominal abscess, postoperative peritonitis, rate of reoperation, and mortality. The wound infection rate was higher in the OA group (OR 21.63; 95% CI 3.46-895.47; P = 0.00). The mean postoperative hospital stay in the LA group was shorter than in the OA group (6.40 ± 4.29 days versus 7.8 ± 5.30 days; P = 0.032). Although LA was only used in one-third of cases, it is a safe procedure and should be considered in the management of patients with diffuse peritonitis caused by AA, respecting its indications.

Gangrenous cholecystitis in male patients: A study of prevalence and predictive risk factors.

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: The prevalence and risk factors of gangrenous cholecystitis in male are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To verify the prevalence and risk factors of gangrenous cholecystitis in males. METHODS: This cross-sectional study includes 95 patients (59.5±17.1 years), with clinical and histopathological diagnosis, operated laparoscopically on 2012-2016. Eligibility was decided based on the variables of age; tachycardia (>100 bpm); leukocytosis (>10,000/mm3); Murphy's sign; gallbladder wall thickness (>4 mm); biochemical tests, morbidities (diabetes, alcoholism, smoking) and mortality. Multivariate regression, the chi-squared and Prevalent Chances Ratio (PCR) were used to define a few parameters. RESULTS: The prevalence of gangrenous cholecystitis in men older than 50 years was 29.3%. The risk factors for the disease were as follows: diabetes mellitus (p=0.006, RCP=4.191), leukocytosis (p=0.003), gallbladder thickness greater than 4 mm (p=0.035, RCP=3.818), which increased mortality [(p=0.04) (RCP=8.001)]. Murphy's sign showed a negative association (p=0.002, RCP=0.204). Values close to significance were observed in relation to gamma glutamyl transferase (p=0.083, RCP=3.125) and hospital stay (p=0.061, RCP=2.765). CONCLUSIONS: Male gender, and age older than 50 years, were correlated with a high prevalence of necrosis, higher than that reported in females. The risk factors for developing necrosis are the same as those described for female patients.

Management of Appendicitis Globally Based on Income of Countries (MAGIC) Study.

BACKGROUND: Our aim is to compare the management approaches and clinical outcomes of acute appendicitis according to annual Gross National Income per Capita (GNI/Capita) of countries. METHODS: Consecutive patients who were diagnosed to have acute appendicitis from 116 centers of 44 countries were prospectively studied over a 6-month period (April-September 2016). Studied variables included demography, Alvarado score, comorbidities, radiological and surgical management, histopathology, and clinical outcome. Data were divided into three groups depending on the GNI/Capita. RESULTS: A total of 4271 patients having a mean (SD) age of 33.4 (17.3) years were studied. Fifty-five percent were males. Two hundred and eighty patients were from lower-middle-income (LMI) countries, 1756 were from upper-middle-income (UMI) countries, and 2235 were from high-income (HI) countries. Patients in LMI countries were significantly younger (p < 0.0001) and included more males (p < 0.0001). CT scan was done in less than 8% of cases in LMI countries, 23% in UMI countries, and 38% in HI countries. Laparoscopy was performed in 73% of the cases in the HI countries, while open appendectomy was done in more than 60% of cases in both LMI and UMI countries (p < 0.0001). The longest mean hospital stay was in the UMI group (4.84 days). There was no significant difference in the complication or death rates between the three groups. The overall death rate was 3 per 1000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: There is great variation in the presentation, severity of disease, radiological workup, and surgical management of patients having acute appendicitis that is related to country income. A global effort is needed to address this variation. Individual socioeconomic status could be more important than global country socioeconomic status in predicting clinical outcome.

WSES SM (World Society of Emergency Surgery Summer Meeting) highlights: emergency surgery around the world (Brazil, Finland, USA).

Emergency surgery is performed in every hospital with a A and E unit all around the world. However it is organized in different ways with different results.Aim of this paper is to present history, current scope, current training program and new politics for training national program of 3 countries of different continents.Brazil, Finland and US emergency surgery models are presented discussing all criticisms showed during the WSES Summer Meeting 2008.