Correction to: Concomitant Use of Hyaluronic Acid and Laser in Facial Rejuvenation.

The article Concomitant Use of Hyaluronic Acid and Laser in Facial Rejuvenation written by Urdiales-Gálvez et al. was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on May 9, 2019, without open access.

Concomitant Use of Hyaluronic Acid and Laser in Facial Rejuvenation.

BACKGROUND: Facial aging is a process that involves many different changes. Therefore, in many patients, it may be necessary to perform a combined treatment. Botulinum toxin A and dermal fillers are the two most popular nonsurgical cosmetic procedures performed globally to treat age-associated changes. However, there are not many studies reporting the concomitant use of dermal fillers and laser technology for facial rejuvenation. This review aims to assess the concomitant use of dermal hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers and laser technology for facial rejuvenation. METHODS: The present updated consensus recommendations are based on the experience and opinions of the authors and on a literature search. RESULTS: If a combined procedure (HA and light treatments) is to be performed, on the same day, the panel recommends starting always with the light treatments, avoiding skin manipulations after having injected HA. To customize the therapeutic management, it is crucial to establish a precise diagnosis of the photodamage and loss of volumes suffered by the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The currently available scientific evidence about the combined use of HA fillers and laser-radiofrequency-intense pulsed light (laser/RF/IPL) is limited and encompasses mainly small and nonrandomized studies. Nevertheless, most of these studies found that, on average, the concomitant use (same day) of laser and HA fillers for facial rejuvenation represents an effective and safe strategy which improves clinical results and patient's satisfaction. Future well-designed clinical studies are needed regarding the effectiveness and safety of combination filler/laser treatments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The SIFIPAC/WSES/SICG/SIMEU guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis in the elderly (2019 edition).

The epidemiology and the outcomes of acute appendicitis in elderly patients are very different from the younger population. Elderly patients with acute appendicitis showed higher mortality, higher perforation rate, lower diagnostic accuracy, longer delay from symptoms onset and admission, higher postoperative complication rate and higher risk of colonic and appendiceal cancer. The aim of the present work was to investigate age-related factors that could influence a different approach, compared to the 2016 WSES Jerusalem guidelines on general population, in terms of diagnosis and management of elderly patient with acute appendicitis. During the XXIX National Congress of the Italian Society of Surgical Pathophysiology (SIFIPAC) held in Cesena (Italy) in May 2019, in collaboration with the Italian Society of Geriatric Surgery (SICG), the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU), a panel of experts participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements, which were developed for each of the four topics about diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis in elderly patients, formulated according to the GRADE system. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to the Consensus Conference. The current paper is reporting the definitive guidelines statements on each of the following topics: diagnosis, non-operative management, operative management and antibiotic therapy.

Laparoscopic appendectomy in Italy: an appraisal of 26,863 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the practice of laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) in Italy. METHODS: On behalf of the Italian Society of Young Surgeons (SPIGC), an audit of LA was carried out through a written questionnaire sent to 800 institutions in Italy. The questions concerned the diffusion of laparoscopic surgery and LA over the period 1990 through 2001, surgery-related morbidity and mortality rates, indications for LA, the diagnostic algorithm adopted prior to surgery, and use of LA among young surgeons (<40 years). RESULTS: A total of 182 institutions (22.7%) participated in the current audit, and accounted for a total number of 26863 LA. Laparoscopic surgery is performed in 173 (95%) institutions, with 144 (83.2%) routinely performing LA. The mean interval from introduction of laparoscopic surgery to inception of LA was 3.4 +/- 2.5 years. There was an emergent basis for 8809 (32.8%) LA procedures (<6 hours of admission); 10314 (38.4%) procedures were performed on an urgent basis (<24 hours of admission); while 7740 (28.8%) procedures were elective. The conversion rate was 2.1% (561 cases) and was due to intraoperative complications in 197 cases (35.1%). Intraoperative complications ranged as high as 0.32%, while postoperative complications were reported in 1.2% of successfully completed LA. The mean hospital stay for successfully completed LA was 2.5 +/- 1.05 days. The highest rate of intraoperative complications was reported as occurring during the learning curve phase of their experience (in their first 10 procedures) by 39.7% of the surgeons. LA was indicated for every case of suspected acute appendiceal disease by 51.8% of surgeons, and 44.8% order abdominal ultrasound (US) prior to surgery. A gynecologic counseling is deemed necessary only by 34.5% surgeons, while an abdominal CT scan is required only by 1.5%. The procedure is completed laparoscopically in the absence of gross appendiceal inflammation by 83%; 79.8% try to complete the procedure laparoscopically in the presence of concomitant disease; while 10.4% convert to open surgery in cases of suspected malignancy. Of responding surgeons aged under 40, 76.3% can perform LA, compared to 47.3% surgeons of all age categories. CONCLUSIONS: The low response rate of the present survey does not allow us to assess the diffusion of LA in Italy, but rather to appraise its practice in centers routinely performing laparoscopic surgery. In the hands of experienced surgeons, LA has morbidity rates comparable to those of international series. The higher diagnostic yield of laparoscopy makes it an invaluable tool in the management algorithm of women of childbearing age; its advantages in the presence of severe peritonitis are less clear-cut. Surgeons remain the main limiting factor preventing a wider diffusion of LA in our country, since only 47.3% of surgeons from the audited institutions can perform LA on a routine basis.

Long-term results of tailored D(2) lymph node dissection after R(0) surgery for gastric cancer.

Implementation of extended lymph node dissection for gastric cancer in western non-specialized centers through tailoring its extent upon disease stage and patient comorbidities was suggested as a wise policy to reduce morbidity and mortality rates, albeit with a potential for undertreatment in elderly and/or comorbid patients. Current definition of R(0) resection for gastric cancer lacks consideration of treatment-related variables such as extended lymph node dissection. Few studies to date have tried to fill this gap in such a clinical context. A retrospective evaluation of factors influencing long-term results after R(0) surgery was done in a prospective series of a non-specialized western surgical unit during the implementation of D(2) lymphadenectomy. Univariate and multivariate analysis of 22 variables were performed on a prospective database of 233 consecutive R(0) resections performed by ten different surgeons in 10 years. Endpoint was disease-free survival calculated at 5 and at 10 years. Disease-free survival rates were independently influenced by age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status and lymph node ratio. Subset analysis of the status at censor stratified for age and ASA status failed to identify any significant difference in disease recurrence rates. Lymph node ratio was the only treatment-related independent prognostic factor for long-term results after R(0) surgery for gastric cancer in the setting of a non-specialized western unit, where the extent of lymph node dissection needs to be tailored on the presence of comorbidities (ASA status).

The ACTIVE (Acute Cholecystitis Trial Invasive Versus Endoscopic) study: multicenter randomized, double-blind, controlled trial of laparoscopic (LC) versus open (LTC) surgery for acute cholecystitis (AC) in adults.

BACKGROUND: In some randomized trials successful laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystitis is associated with an earlier recovery and shorter hospital stay when compared with open cholecystectomy. Other studies did not confirm these results and showed that the potential advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy for cholecystitis can be offset by a high conversion rate to open surgery. Moreover in these studies a similar postoperative programme to optimize recovery comparing laparoscopic and open approaches was not standardized. These studies also do not report all eligible patients and are not double blinded. DESIGN: The present study project is a prospective, randomized investigation. The study will be performed in the Department of General, Emergency and Transplant Surgery St Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital (Bologna, Italy), a large teaching institutions, with the participation of all surgeons who accept to be involved in (and together with other selected centers). The patients will be divided in two groups: in the first group the patient will be submitted to laparoscopic cholecystectomy within 72 hours after the diagnosis while in the second group will be submitted to laparotomic cholecystectomy within 72 hours after the diagnosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN27929536 - The ACTIVE (Acute Cholecystitis Trial Invasive Versus Endoscopic) study. A multicentre randomised, double-blind, controlled trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for acute cholecystitis in adults.