Search

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Disclosures Dr. Antoniou received personal fees from the EAES (including Journal and Publication Committee) and from the European Hernia Society. Dr. Muysoms received grants personal fees and non-financial support from Medtronic and Johnson & Johnson. He received grants and personal fees from B. Braun and Dynamesh. He received personal fees from BARD davol, Cousin Biotech, WL Gore@ass and Dansac outside the submitted work. Prof. Dr. Bonjer received grants and personal fees from Johnson & Johnson, Applied Medical, Medtronic and Olympus. He received personal fees from Cook. All outside the submitted work. Drs. Defoort, Dr. Go, Prof. Dr. Ozmen, Dr. Rhodes, Drs. Gorter, Dr. Eker, Drs Gorter-Stam, Drs. Abis, Drs. Acharya, Drs. Ankersmit, Drs. Arolfo, Drs. Babic, Prof. Dr. Boni, Drs. Bruntink, Drs. Van Dam, Drs. Deijen, Drs. DeLacy, Drs. Harmsen, Drs. Van den Helder, Dr. Iordache, Drs. Ket, Drs. Papoulas, Drs. Straatman, Drs. Tenhagen, Drs. Turrado, Dr. Vereczkei, Prof. Dr. Vilallonga and Drs. Deelder have no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Introduction: Anastomotic leakage is a serious complication after colorectal resection. Recent studies suggest that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs may increase the risk of anastomotic leakage. We investigated this association in our enhanced recovery population., Material and Methods: Patients undergoing an elective colon or rectal resection with primary anastomosis because of malignancy and treated within our enhanced recovery program were included. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to study risk factors for anastomotic leakage., Results: Between 2006 and 2013, 856 patients were included. The anastomotic leakage rate was significantly higher in the group that received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs compared to patients who did not: 9.2 vs. 5.3%, p = 0.038. This higher rate was only seen in patients receiving diclofenac: for colonic resections, 11.8 vs. 6.0%, p = 0.016; for rectal resections, 13.1 vs. 0%, p = 0.017. Only male sex (odds ratio 2.20, p = 0.005) was also independently associated with anastomotic leakage., Conclusion: The results of this study are in line with other comparable studies in the literature, showing an increased risk for anastomotic leakage with diclofenac. The use of diclofenac in colorectal surgery can no longer be recommended. Alternatives for postoperative analgesia need to be explored within an enhanced recovery program.

Introduction: While there is consensus on how to treat acute appendicitis, the most suitable treatment for an appendiceal inflammatory mass is still debated. This study compares the outcomes of operative and nonoperative management., Material and Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 119 patients (2007-2011) with an appendiceal inflammatory mass, 85 of whom were treated nonoperatively and 34 operatively. Of the nonoperative patients, 69 did not receive interventional treatment and 16 underwent percutaneous drainage of an accompanying abscess; the data for these patients were analyzed separately., Results: Of the noninterventional managed patients, 49 (71.0%) experienced at least one recurrence and 37 (53.6%) ultimately needed an acute surgical or radiological intervention. Of the 16 patients who underwent percutaneous drainage, 7 (43.8%) experienced at least one recurrence and 6 (37.5%) underwent an acute surgical or (second) percutaneous intervention. None of the operated patients had a recurrence and the incidence of complications was 17.6%. The incidence of underlying malignant tumor in our study population was 5.9%. In 35 patients, the definitive diagnosis remained unclear because the patients did not undergo surgery or follow-up colonoscopy after nonoperative treatment. The rate of extensive (ileocecal + hemicolonic) resection in all operated patients was 30.8%., Conclusion: We conclude that the high rate of recurrence and intervention in the nonoperative group and the high proportion of these patients who did not receive adequate follow-up despite the relatively high rate (5.9%) of bowel malignancy support the operative management of an appendiceal inflammatory mass. Noninterventional management or a percutaneous intervention should be reserved as a bridge to surgery for patients with a large accompanying abscess or as treatment for patients with significant comorbidity. If nonoperative treatment is chosen, follow-up colonoscopy is mandatory to exclude malignancy.

Introduction: It is well known that patients with cleft lip/palate or cleft palate can have associated anomalies. However, there is a relative paucity of information about the possible anomalies associated with an isolated cleft lip. A recent study (Vallino et al., 2008) showed that children with cleft lip and/or alveolus often develop cleft palate-related issues. This inspired us to investigate our population., Methods: A questionnaire was sent to the parents of 214 children with cleft lip and/or alveolus; 161 questionnaires were returned (response rate (RR): 75%) and included in our study. The study consisted of 91 boys and 70 girls (0.3-13.1 years: mean 6.8 ± 3.5 years)., Results: Speech and/or language problems were reported in 34% and ventilation tube insertion in 21% of children with ≥6 years' follow-up. Of the children in that group, 33% reported to have undergone an episode of acute otitis media and 11% reported five episodes or more. Additional congenital anomalies were found in 4% of children with a cleft lip and in 16% of children with a cleft lip/alveolus., Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that an isolated cleft lip can often be described as an isolated anomaly, although children with cleft lip and/or alveolus develop cleft palate-related issues more often than anticipated. Therefore, we suggest an intensive monitoring and treatment of children with these types of clefts., (Copyright © 2010 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)