Impacto de la pandemia por COVID-19 en la población pediátrica con apendicitis aguda: experiencia en un hospital general de tercer nivel / Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pediatric population with acute appendicitis: Experience at a general, tertiary care hospital

Introducción. La apendicitis constituye la principal causa de abdomen agudo quirúrgico en pediatría. Durante la pandemia por COVID-19, se replantearon las estrategias de manejo ydisminuyeron las consultas en las guardias, lo que podría asociarse a diagnósticos tardíos y complicaciones. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el impacto de la pandemia en los niños con apendicitis aguda. Métodos. Estudio analítico retrospectivocomparativo de pacientes pediátricos conapendicitis aguda durante los cinco meses del confinamiento por COVID-19 versus los meses equivalentes del año previo. Se analizaron la incidencia, la clínica, el estadio, el abordajequirúrgico y las complicaciones. Resultados. Los casos totales de apendicitisse redujeron un 25 % (n = 67 versus n = 50 en 2020). El tiempo medio hasta la consulta fue de 24 horas en ambos períodos (p = 0,989). La incidencia de peritonitis fue del 44 % (n = 22) versus el 37 % (n = 22) (p = 0,22) en 2019. No se evidenció diferencia en los estadios deenfermedad de acuerdo con lo informado en los partes quirúrgicos. En 2019, todas las cirugías se realizaron por vía laparoscópica; en 2020, solo un42 % (n = 21). La incidencia de complicaciones fue del 6 %, contra 7,5 % en el período previo (p = 0,75). Un paciente fue COVID-19 positivo. Conclusión. A pesar de la reducción en el númerode casos de apendicitis, no se evidenció una demora en la consulta en nuestra población. El mayor impacto se asoció a la readecuación del manejo, evitando el abordaje laparoscópico para reducir la diseminación del virus.

Introduction. Appendicitis is the leading cause of surgical acute abdomen in pediatrics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, management strategies were reassessed and the number of visits to the emergency department dropped down, which may be associated with delayed diagnoses and complications. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the pandemic on children with acute appendicitis. Methods. Analytical, retrospective, comparative study of pediatric patients with acute appendicitis in the 5 months of COVID-19 lockdown versus the same period in the previous year. Incidence, clinical data, stage, surgical approach, and complications were analyzed. Results. The total number of appendicitis cases went down by 25 % (n = 67 versus n = 50 in 2020). The mean time to consultation was 24 hours in both periods (p = 0.989). The incidence of peritonitis was 44 % (n = 22) versus 37 % (n = 22) (p = 0.22) in 2019. No differences were  observed in terms of appendicitis stage based on surgery reports. In 2019, all surgeries were laparoscopic; while in 2020, only 42 % (n = 21). The incidence of complications was 6 % versus 7.5 % in the previous period (p = 0.75). One patient was COVID-19 positive. Conclusion. Although in our population the number of appendicitis cases dropped down, consultation was not delayed. The greater impact was associated with the reformulation of management strategies, in which the laparoscopic approach is avoided to reduce virus transmission.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the pediatric population with acute appendicitis: Experience at a general, tertiary care hospital. / Impacto de la pandemia por COVID-19 en la población pediátrica con apendicitis aguda: experiencia en un hospital general de tercer nivel.

INTRODUCTION: Appendicitis is the leading cause of surgical acute abdomen in pediatrics. During the COVID-19 pandemic, management strategies were reassessed and the number of visits to the emergency department dropped down, which may be associated with delayed diagnoses and complications. The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of the pandemic on children with acute appendicitis. METHODS: Analytical, retrospective, comparative study of pediatric patients with acute appendicitis in the 5 months of COVID-19 lockdown versus the same period in the previous year. Incidence, clinical data, stage, surgical approach, and complications were analyzed. RESULTS: The total number of appendicitis cases went down by 25% (n = 67 versus n = 50 in 2020). The mean time to consultation was 24 hours in both periods (p = 0.989). The incidence of peritonitis was 44% (n = 22) versus 37% (n = 22) (p = 0.22) in 2019. No differences were observed in terms of appendicitis stage based on surgery reports. In 2019, all surgeries were laparoscopic; while in 2020, only 42% (n = 21). The incidence of complications was 6% versus 7.5% in the previous period (p = 0.75). One patient was COVID-19 positive. CONCLUSION: Although in our population the number of appendicitis cases dropped down, consultation was not delayed. The greater impact was associated with the reformulation of management strategies, in which the laparoscopic approach is avoided to reduce virus transmission.

Introducción. La apendicitis constituye la principal causa de abdomen agudo quirúrgico en pediatría. Durante la pandemia por COVID-19, se replantearon las estrategias de manejo y disminuyeron las consultas en las guardias, lo que podría asociarse a diagnósticos tardíos y complicaciones. El objetivo de este estudio fue analizar el impacto de la pandemia en los niños con apendicitis aguda. Métodos. Estudio analítico retrospectivo comparativo de pacientes pediátricos con apendicitis aguda durante los cinco meses del confinamiento por COVID-19 versus los meses equivalentes del año previo. Se analizaron la incidencia, la clínica, el estadio, el abordaje quirúrgico y las complicaciones. Resultados. Los casos totales de apendicitis se redujeron un 25% (n = 67 versus n = 50 en 2020). El tiempo medio hasta la consulta fue de 24 horas en ambos períodos (p = 0,989). La incidencia de peritonitis fue del 44% (n = 22) versus el 37% (n = 22) (p = 0,22) en 2019. No se evidenció diferencia en los estadios de enfermedad de acuerdo con lo informado en los partes quirúrgicos. En 2019, todas las cirugías se realizaron por vía laparoscópica; en 2020, solo un 42% (n = 21). La incidencia de complicaciones fue del 6%, contra 7,5% en el período previo (p = 0,75). Un paciente fue COVID-19 positivo. Conclusión. A pesar de la reducción en el número de casos de apendicitis, no se evidenció una demora en la consulta en nuestra población. El mayor impacto se asoció a la readecuación del manejo, evitando el abordaje laparoscópico para reducir la diseminación del virus.

National survey on the treatment of acute appendicitis in Spain during the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on Spanish hospitals, which have had to allocate all available resources to treat these patients, reducing the ability to attend other common pathologies. The aim of this study is to analyze how the treatment of acute appendicitis has been affected. METHOD: A national descriptive study was carried out by an online voluntary specific questionnaire with Google Drive™ distributed by email by the Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC) to all affiliated surgeons currently working in Spain (5203), opened from April 14th to April 24th. RESULTS: We received 337 responses from 170 centers. During the first month of the pandemic, the incidence of acute appendicitis decreased. Although conservative management increased, the surgical option has been the most used in both simple and complicated appendicitis. Despite the fact that the laparoscopic approach continues to be the most widely used in our services, the open approach has increased during this pandemic period. CONCLUSION: Highlight the contribution of this study in terms of knowledge of the status of the treatment of acute appendicitis during this first month of the pandemic, being able to serve for a better possible organization in future waves of the pandemic and a reorganization of current protocols and management of acute appendicitis in a pandemic situation.

Appendicitis in the COVID-19 era: a modern challenge for experienced hands.

INTRODUCTION: The first wave of COVID-19 was accompanied by global uncertainty. Delayed presentation of patients to hospitals ensued, with surgical pathologies no exception. This study aimed to assess whether delayed presentations resulted in more complex appendicectomies during the first wave of COVID-19. METHODS: Operation notes for all presentations of appendicitis (n=216) within a single health board (three hospitals) during two three-month periods (control period (pre-COVID) vs COVID pandemic) were analysed, and the severity of appendicitis was recorded as per the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grading system. RESULTS: Presentations of appendicitis were delayed during the COVID period with a median duration of symptoms prior to hospital attendance of two days versus one day (p=0.003) with individuals presenting with higher median white cell count than during the control period (14.9 vs 13.3, p=0.031). Use of preoperative CT scanning (OR 3.013, 95% CI 1.694-5.358, p<0.001) increased significantly. More complex appendicectomies (AAST grade >1) were performed (OR 2.102, 95% CI 1.155-3.826, p=0.015) with a greater consultant presence during operations (OR 4.740, 95% CI 2.523-8.903, p<0.001). Despite the greater AAST scores recorded during the COVID period, no increase in postoperative complications was observed (OR 1.145, 95% CI 0.404-3.244, p=0.798). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed presentations during the COVID-19 pandemic were associated with more complex cases of appendicitis. Important lessons can be learnt from the changes in practice employed as a result of this global pandemic.

Where have all the appendicectomies gone?

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic stimulated a national lockdown in the UK. The public were advised to avoid unnecessary hospital attendances and health professionals were advised to avoid aerosol-generating procedures wherever possible. The authors hypothesised that these measures would result in a reduction in the number of patients presenting to hospital with acute appendicitis and alter treatment choices. METHODS: A multicentred, prospective observational study was undertaken during April 2020 to identify adults treated for acute appendicitis. Searches of operative and radiological records were performed to identify patients treated during April 2018 and April 2019 for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients were treated for acute appendicitis pre-lockdown compared with 64 patients treated during lockdown. Patients treated during the pandemic were more likely to have a higher American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (p = 0.049) and to have delayed their presentation to hospital (2 versus 3 days, p = 0.03). During the lockdown, the use of computed tomography (CT) increased from 36.3% to 85.9% (p < 0.001), the use of an antibiotic-only approach increased from 6.2% to 40.6% (p < 0.001) and the rate of laparoscopic appendicectomy reduced from 85.3% to 17.2% (p < 0.001). The negative appendicectomy rate decreased from 21.7% to 7.1% during lockdown (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 lockdown was associated with a decreased incidence of acute appendicitis and a significant shift in the management approach. The increased use of CT allows the identification of simple appendicitis for conservative treatment and decreases the negative appendicectomy rate.

Appendectomy Versus Observation for Appendicitis in Neutropenic Children With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of neutropenic appendicitis (NA) in children undergoing cancer therapy remains undefined. Management strategies include upfront appendectomy or initial nonoperative management. We aimed to characterize the effect of management strategy on complications and length of stay (LOS) and describe implications for chemotherapy delay or alteration. METHODS: Sites from the Pediatric Surgery Oncology Research Collaborative performed a retrospective review of children with NA over a 6-year period. RESULTS: Sixty-six children, with a median age of 11 years (range 1-17), were identified with NA while undergoing cancer treatment. The most common cancer diagnoses were leukemia (62%) and brain tumor (12%). Upfront appendectomy was performed in 41% of patients; the remainder had initial nonoperative management. Rates of abscess or perforation at diagnosis were equivalent in the groups (30% vs 24%; P = .23). Of patients who had initial nonoperative management, 46% (17 of 37) underwent delayed appendectomy during the same hospitalization. Delayed appendectomy was due to failure of initial nonoperative management in 65% (n = 11) and count recovery in 35% (n = 6). Cancer therapy was delayed in 35% (n = 23). Initial nonoperative management was associated with a delay in cancer treatment (46% vs. 22%, P = .05) and longer LOS (29 vs 12 days; P = .01). Patients who had initial nonoperative management and delayed appendectomy had a higher rate of postoperative complications (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In pediatric patients with NA from oncologic treatment, upfront appendectomy resulted in lower complication rates, reduced LOS, and fewer alterations in chemotherapy regimens compared to initial nonoperative management.

Comparison of acute appendicitis before and within lockdown period in COVID-19 era: A retrospective study from rural Nepal.

INTRODUCTION: The world has been engulfed with the pandemic of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) which have created significant impact in the emergency surgical health delivery including acute appendicitis. The main aim of this study was to compare the demographic and clinical parameters between two cohorts before the onset of lockdown and within the pandemic. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed between two groups A and B, who presented with acute appendicitis three months prior to and after initiation of lockdown on March 24 2020 respectively in one of the tertiary centers of Nepal. These two cohorts were compared in demographics, clinicopathological characteristics and surgical aspects of acute appendicitis. RESULTS: There were 42 patients in group A and 50 patients in group B. Mean age of the patients was 31.32±17.18 years with male preponderance in group B (N = 29). Mean duration of pain increased significantly in group B [57.8±25.9(B) vs 42.3±25.0(A) hours, P = 0.004] along with mean duration of surgery [51.06±9.4(B) vs 45.27±11.8(A) minutes, P = 0.015]. There was significant decrease in post-operative hospital stay among group B patients [3.04±1.1(B) vs 3.86±0.67(A) days, P = 0.0001]. Complicated cases increased in group B including appendicular perforation in 10 cases. Similarly, mean duration of presentation to hospital significantly increased in group B patients with perforation [69.6±21.01 vs 51.57±17.63 hours, P = 0.008]. CONCLUSION: During the adversity of the current pandemic, increased number of cases of acute appendicitis can be dealt with surgery as the chances of late presentation and complexity of the lesion exists.

Factors affecting the length of hospital stay after laparoscopic appendectomy: A single center study.

AIM: This study aimed to explore factors may affect the length of hospital stay after laparoscopic appendectomy. METHODS: The data of 636 patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy between July 2016 and July 2019 in Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into group A (hospital stay ≤3 days, 348 patients) and group B (hospital stay >3 days, 288 patients) according to their hospital stay.Sex, age, disease onset time(time from onset to admission), nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, peritonitis, comorbidities, and history of appendicitis; preoperative body temperature (T), white blood cell (WBC) count, percentage of neutrophilic granulocytes, and preoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) level; time from diagnosis to surgery. appendix diameter, appendicolith, and ascites in ultrasound or CT; surgical time(the surgery start time was the time of skin incision, and the end time was the time the anesthesia intubation was removed), intraoperative blood loss (the volume of blood infiltrating into a gauze was calculated by weighing the gauze infiltrated with water and calculating the volume of water), intraoperative adhesions or effusions, and stump closure methods, convert to open appendectomy, appendix pathology(perforated or gangrenous appendicitis were defined as complicated appendicitis and simple or suppurative appendicitis were defined as uncomplicated appendicitis) and antibiotic treatment schemes were analyzed. RESULTS: Significant differences were detected between group A and group B in age (37.10 ± 13.52y vs 42.94 ± 15.57y, P<0.01), disease onset time (21.36 ± 16.56 h vs 32.52 ± 27.99 h, P <0.01), time from diagnosis to surgery (8.63 ± 7.29 h vs 10.70 ± 8.47 h, P<0.01); surgical time(64.09 ± 17.24 min vs 86.19 ± 39.96 min, P < 0.01); peritonitis(52.9% vs 74%, P < 0.01), comorbidities (12.4% vs 20.5%, P < 0.01), appendicolith (27.6% vs 41.7%, P < 0.01), ascites before the surgery(13.8% vs 22.9%, P < 0.01), intraoperative adhesions or effusions(56% vs 80.2%, P < 0.01); preoperative temperature (37.11 ± 0.64°C vs 37.54 ± 0.90°C, P < 0.01); preoperative WBC count (13.06 ± 3.39 × 109/L vs 14.21 ± 4.54 × 109/L, P = 0.04);preoperative CRP level(18.99 ± 31.72 mg/L vs 32.46 ± 46.68 mg/L, P < 0.01); appendix diameter(10.22 ± 2.59 mm vs 11.26 ± 3.23 mm, P < 0.01); intraoperative blood loss (9.36 ± 7.29 mL vs 13.74 ± 13.49 mL, P < 0.01); using Hem-o-lok for stump closure(30.7% vs 38.5%, P = 0.04); complicated appendicitis (9.5% vs 45.8%, P < 0.01); and using ertapenem for antibiotic treatment after the surgery(4.3% vs 21.5%, P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that age (OR = 1.021; 95%CI = 1.007-1.036), peritonitis (OR = 1.603; 95% CI = 1.062-2.419), preoperative WBC count (OR = 1.084; 95% CI = 1.025-1.046), preoperative CRP level (OR = 1.010; 95% CI = 1.005-1.015), time from diagnosis to surgery (OR = 1.043; 95% CI = 1.015-1.072), appendicolith (OR = 1.852; 95% CI = 1.222-2.807), complicated appendicitis (OR = 3.536; 95% CI = 2.132-5.863), surgical time (OR = 1.025; 95% CI = 1.016-1.034), use of Hem-o-lok for stump closure (OR = 1.894; 95% CI = 1.257-2.852), and use of ertapenem for antibiotic treatment (OR = 3.076; 95% CI = 1.483-6.378) were the risk factors for a prolonged hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: The patient with appendicitis was older and had peritonitis, higher preoperative WBC count or CRP level, longer time from diagnosis to surgery, appendicolith, and complicated appendicitis, predicting a prolonged hospital stay. Shorter surgical time and the use of silk ligation for stump closure and cephalosporins + metronidazole for antibiotic treatment might be better choices to obtain a shorter hospital stay.

Tomografía computarizada para el diagnóstico de la apendicitis aguda en adultos / Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults

¿Por qué es importante mejorar el diagnóstico de la apendicitis? El propósito de utilizar la tomografía computarizada (TC) en personas con sospecha de apendicitis es ayudar al médico a diferenciar entre los pacientes que necesitan una cirugía con resección del apéndice (apendicectomía) y los que no necesitan este procedimiento. ¿Cuál es el objetivo de esta revisión? El objetivo de esta revisión Cochrane fue averiguar cómo de precisa es la TC de abdomen y pelvis para el diagnóstico de apendicitis en adultos. Los investigadores de Cochrane incluyeron 64 estudios en la revisión para responder a esta pregunta. ¿Qué se estudió en la revisión? Una TC puede realizarse de varias maneras. La calidad de la imagen puede mejorarse mediante el uso de material de contraste intravenoso, y la visualización del apéndice puede ser mejor cuando se utiliza contraste oral o rectal. La TC también puede realizarse con una dosis baja de radiación. La exposición a la radiación relacionada con la TC puede aumentar el riesgo de cáncer de por vida. Esta revisión estudió la precisión de los siguientes tipos de TC: cualquier tipo de TC, TC según el tipo de contraste, y TC de baja dosis. ¿Cuáles son los principales resultados? Esta revisión incluyó 64 estudios relevantes que informaron de los resultados de 71 poblaciones de estudio diferentes con un total de 10.280 participantes. Los resultados generales indican que, en teoría, si se utilizara una TC de cualquier tipo urgencias en un grupo de 1.000 personas, de las cuales el 43% tuviese apendicitis, entonces se estima que: a) 443 personas tendrían una TC que indicaría apendicitis y, de estas, el 8% no tendría apendicitis aguda; y b) 557 personas tendrían una TC que indicaría que no hay apendicitis, y el 4% tendría en realidad apendicitis aguda. La TC de baja dosis sería tan precisa como la TC de dosis estándar para diagnosticar la apendicitis. La TC con material de contraste intravenoso, rectal u oral e intravenoso sería igual de precisa, y más precisa que la TC sin contraste. ¿Cómo de fiables son los resultados de los estudios en esta revisión? Entre los estudios incluidos, el diagnóstico final de apendicitis se basó en los hallazgos quirúrgicos o en el examen microscópico del apéndice resecado. Entre los participantes sin cirugía, la apendicitis se descartó mediante un seguimiento para ver si sus síntomas se resolvían sin apendicectomía. Es probable que este haya sido un método fiable para decidir si los pacientes realmente tenían apendicitis si el seguimiento fue cuidadoso y completo. Lamentablemente, no fue así en una proporción sustancial de los estudios incluidos. En general, se observaron algunos problemas en la forma de realizar los estudios. Esto puede haber dado lugar a que la TC parezca más precisa de lo que realmente es, aumentando así el número de resultados correctos de la TC. ¿A quién son aplicables los resultados? Los estudios incluidos en la revisión se realizaron principalmente en los servicios de urgencias. Se sospechó que todos los participantes tenían apendicitis después del examen clínico y los análisis de sangre. Los estudios incluidos evaluaron una amplia gama de tipos de TC. La edad promedio de los participantes varió entre 25 y 46años, porcentaje de mujeres varió entre el 26% y el 100%, y el porcentaje de participantes con un diagnóstico final de apendicitis varió entre el 13% y el 92% (promedio: 43%). ¿Cuáles son las implicaciones? La TC es una prueba precisa que probablemente ayude a los médicos a tratar a las personas con posible apendicitis. Los resultados de esta revisión indican que la probabilidad de que un clínico diagnostique erróneamente una apendicitis aguda parece ser baja (8% cuando la TC sugiere que tienen apendicitis). La probabilidad de no obtener un diagnóstico de apendicitis también es baja (4% cuando la TC sugiere que no tienen apendicitis). ¿Cómo de actualizada es esta revisión? Se incluyeron estudios publicados hasta el 16 de junio de 2017

No disponible

Trends in the Use of Laparoscopic Versus Open Paediatric Appendicectomy: A Regional 12-Year Study and a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: In adult patients, it is generally accepted that laparoscopic appendicectomy (LA) is the predominant operative pathway in treating acute appendicitis. The case for a similar pathway utilising LA in children is less clear. We investigate usage, trends and complications after LA in children in a single co-located adult/paediatric centre with contemporaneous adults as controls. METHODS: A retrospective case-control study was conducted over 12 years including patients who underwent appendicectomy, and the paediatric series (<16 years) was divided into age-groups-based quartiles. An anonymous questionnaire-based national survey was circulated among general and paediatric surgeons. RESULTS: Of the 5784 appendicectomy patients, 2960 were children. LA rate in paediatric appendicitis was 65%. Yearly trends in LA reached a steady state in both groups after 2010 (Δ 0-1%/year). Rates of LA and LA IAA (respectively) differed significantly between age groups: 60, 3% (0-9 years); 65, 1% (10-13 years); 71, 2% (14-16 years) and 93, 3% (>16 years) (p = 0.001, 0.02). The national survey showed respondents believed LA was not superior to OA in paediatric patients except in terms of cosmesis. There was strong support in the use of LA in older children and children >40 kg. CONCLUSION: The use of LA in paediatric appendicectomies in the study region is similar to international rates, but not increasing over time. Irish surgeons still favour OA in younger children and prefer a case-by-case approach rather LA being the preferred pathway. This is despite the regional and international evidence showing favourable outcomes with LA in children.

Existe el paciente ideal para la apendicectomía transumbilical asistida por laparoscopia? / Is there an ideal patient for transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy?

Objetivos. Identificar los factores que influyen en la morbilidad postoperatoria en pacientes intervenidos mediante apendicectomía transumbilical asistida por laparoscopia o TULAA (transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy). Material y métodos. Estudio analítico retrospectivo de pacientes intervenidos mediante TULAA en nuestro centro entre 2007-2014. Se incluyeron las variables: localización del apéndice, reconversiones, tipo de apendicitis, tiempo quirúrgico y complicaciones. Se utilizó t de Student y chi-cuadrado para el análisis estadístico. Resultados. Se analizaron un total de 111 apendicectomías TULAA. Tiempo quirúrgico medio 79 minutos (45-150). El 90% de pacientes tenían apendicitis simple y 10% apendicitis complicada. En 35,13% casos se utilizaron trócares adicionales, cuando el apéndice se posicionaba de forma atípica ascendió al 89,5% de casos, mientras que cuando el apéndice se encontró en posición típica este dato disminuía al 25,9% (p<0,05). Se reconvirtió en un 6,3% de casos (20,8% apéndice en posición atípica, 2,3% apéndice en posición habitual, p<0,05). Se encontró un 3,6% de casos con infección de herida quirúrgica explicada por perforación iatrogénica en la maniobra de extracción del apéndice (p<0,05). Todas las apéndices perforadas en la maniobra de extracción se trataron de apendicitis complicadas. Conclusiones. La posición anómala del apéndice se relaciona de forma significativa con la necesidad de colocación de trócares adicionales o reconversión a cirugía abierta. Consideramos la TULAA ideal en los casos de localización anterior del apéndice y en apendicitis no complicadas (AU)

Objectives. To identify the factors that lead to postoperative morbidity in acute appendicitis patients treated using a TULAA (Transumbilical laparoscopic assisted appendectomy) approach. Material and methods. Retrospective review of patients treated through a TULAA approach between 2007 and 2014. Data concerning the location of the appendix, need for conversion, appendiceal abscess or perforation, surgical time and other complications were collected. Student's T test and Chi-squared test were used for statistical analysis. Results. A total of 111 appendectomies underwent TULAA. The average operating time was 79 minutes (45-150). Nonperforated appendicitis was found in 90% of patients with 10% having perforated appendicitis or appendiceal abscess. In 35,13% of cases, additional trocars were used, usually when the appendix was in a retrocecal position (89,5%). When the appendix was found in a pelvic or ileal position, a need for extra trocars decreased to 25.9% (p<0.05). The surgery was converted to open surgery in 6,3% of the cases. The appendix in a retrocecal position had a conversion rate of 20,8% compared to 2,3% of cases with an appendix in a pelvic location (p<0.05). A total of 3,6% reported postoperative wound infection, possibly caused by perforation of the appendix during extraction (p<0.05). All the perforated appendixes were considered complicated appendixes. Conclusions. The retrocecal location of the appendix is associated with the need to install additional trocars or conversion to open surgery. The TULAA approach is ideal for patients with nonperforated acute appendicitis in a pelvic or ileal location (AU)

[Novelties in surgery in 2016]. / Quoi de neuf en chirurgie?

The year 2016 allowed further implementation of previous years innovations with the PIPAC treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis, the development of new surgical technologies and procedures and challenging general principles in general and digestive surgery, including cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Prevention, improved general and perioperative care (ERAS program) become an integral part of our standard surgical activity.

L'année 2016 a permis le développement des innovations des années précédentes avec le traitement PIPAC pour la carcinose péritonéale, le déploiement de nouvelles technologies et procédures chirurgicales et la remise en cause de principes généraux en chirurgie générale et digestive, notamment pour la cholécystectomie et l'appendicectomie. La prévention, l'amélioration des soins et de la prise en charge périopératoire (programme ERAS) deviennent une part intégrante de notre activité chirurgicale.

Emergency appendicectomy in Australia: findings from a multicentre, prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency appendicectomy is the most common emergency surgical procedure performed in Australia. Despite this frequency, there is a relative paucity of contemporary, broad-based, local data that examine how emergency appendicectomies are currently performed and what are the outcomes from these operations. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective, observational study was performed. Patients were recruited by local investigators for a period of 2 months with 30-day follow-up. Patients were eligible for study inclusion if they underwent an emergency appendicectomy for suspected acute appendicitis. The primary outcome of the study was the negative appendicectomy rate (NAR), with secondary outcomes including 30-day complication rates, method of operation and conversion rates. RESULTS: A total of 1189 patients were recruited across 27 centres. The NAR across all centres was 19.0%. 98.2% of appendicectomies were performed with a laparoscopic-first approach. The rate of conversion from laparoscopy to open operation was 2.4%. 9.4% of patients were recorded as having one or more of the following complications: readmission (6.6%), surgical site infection (1.9%), intra-abdominal abscess (2.7%) or further intervention (1.5%). Patients who had an open operation had higher rates of readmission and surgical site infection. CONCLUSION: The NAR found in this study is within the traditional measures of acceptance; however, this rate is high when measured against modern international benchmarks.

Cáncer de mama en un paciente varón / Breast cancer in a male patient

No disponible

Apendicitis de muñón. ¿Una realidad infravalorada? / Stump appendicitis. Underrated reality?

No disponible

Emerging Techniques in Minimally Invasive Surgery. Pros and Cons.

New trends have emerged regarding the best minimally invasive access approaches to perform gastrointestinal surgery. However, these newer approaches are seen critically by those who demand a more strict assessment of outcomes and safety. An international panel of expert gathered at the 2014 American College of Surgeons Meeting with the goal of providing an evidence-based understanding of the real value of these approaches in gastrointestinal surgery. The panel has compared the efficacy and safety of most established approaches to gastrointestinal diseases to those of new treatment modalities: peroral esophageal myotomy vs. laparoscopic myotomy for achalasia, transgastric vs. transvaginal approach, and single-incision vs. multi-port access minimally invasive surgery. The panel found that (1) the outcome of these new approaches was not superior to that of established surgical procedures; (2) the new approaches are generally performed in few highly specialized centers; and (3) transgastric and transvaginal approaches might be safe and feasible in very experienced hands, but cost, training, operative time, and tools seem to limit their application for the treatment of common procedures such as cholecystectomy and appendectomy. Because the expected advantages of new approaches have yet to be proven in controlled trials, new approaches should be considered for adoption into practice only after thorough analyses of their efficacy and effectiveness and appropriate training.

Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Natural-orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) represents one of the most significant innovations in surgery to emerge since the advent of laparoscopy. A decade of progress with this approach has now been catalogued, and yet its clinical application remains controversial. METHODS: A PubMed search was carried out for articles describing NOTES in both the preclinical and the clinical setting. Public perceptions and expert opinion regarding NOTES in the published literature were analysed carefully. RESULTS: Two hundred relevant articles on NOTES were studied and the outcomes reviewed. A division between direct- and indirect-target NOTES was established. The areas with the most promising clinical application included direct-target NOTES, such as transanal total mesorectal excision and peroral endoscopic myotomy. The clinical experience with distant-target NOTES, such as for appendicectomy and cholecystectomy, showed feasibility; however, NOTES-specific morbidity was introduced and this represents an important limitation. CONCLUSION: NOTES experimentation in the preclinical setting has increased substantially. There has also been a significant increase in the application of NOTES in humans in the past decade. Enthusiasm for NOTES should be tempered by the risk of incurring NOTES-specific morbidity. Surgeons should carefully consider patient preferences regarding this new minimally invasive option, as opinions are not unanimously supportive of NOTES. As technical limitations are overcome, the clinical application of NOTES is predicted to increase. It is paramount that, when this complex technique is performed on humans, it is applied judiciously by appropriately trained experts with outcomes recorded in a registry.