| 1. |
- Di Saverio, Salomone, et al.
(author)
-
Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines
- 2020
-
In: World Journal of Emergency Surgery. - : BMC. - 1749-7922. ; 15:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background and aims Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is still challenging and some controversies on its management are still present among different settings and practice patterns worldwide. In July 2015, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) organized in Jerusalem the first consensus conference on the diagnosis and treatment of AA in adult patients with the intention of producing evidence-based guidelines. An updated consensus conference took place in Nijemegen in June 2019 and the guidelines have now been updated in order to provide evidence-based statements and recommendations in keeping with varying clinical practice: use of clinical scores and imaging in diagnosing AA, indications and timing for surgery, use of non-operative management and antibiotics, laparoscopy and surgical techniques, intra-operative scoring, and peri-operative antibiotic therapy. Methods This executive manuscript summarizes the WSES guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of AA. Literature search has been updated up to 2019 and statements and recommendations have been developed according to the GRADE methodology. The statements were voted, eventually modified, and finally approved by the participants to the consensus conference and by the board of co-authors, using a Delphi methodology for voting whenever there was controversy on a statement or a recommendation. Several tables highlighting the research topics and questions, search syntaxes, and the statements and the WSES evidence-based recommendations are provided. Finally, two different practical clinical algorithms are provided in the form of a flow chart for both adults and pediatric (< 16 years old) patients. Conclusions The 2020 WSES guidelines on AA aim to provide updated evidence-based statements and recommendations on each of the following topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) non-operative management for uncomplicated AA, (3) timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, (4) surgical treatment, (5) intra-operative grading of AA, (6) ,management of perforated AA with phlegmon or abscess, and (7) peri-operative antibiotic therapy.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Tamme, Kadri, et al.
(author)
-
Biomarkers In Prediction of Acute Mesenteric Ischaemia : a prospective multicentre study (BIPAMI study): a study protocol
- 2024
-
In: BMC Surgery. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2482. ; 24:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundAcute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a life-threatening disease where early diagnosis is critical to avoid morbidity and mortality from extensive irreversible bowel necrosis. Appropriate prediction of presence of bowel necrosis is currently not available but would help to choose the optimal method of treatment. The study aims to identify combinations of biomarkers that can reliably identify AMI and distinguish between potentially reversible and irreversible bowel ischaemia.MethodsThis is a prospective multicentre study. Adult patients with clinical suspicion of AMI (n = 250) will be included. Blood will be sampled on admission, at and after interventions, or during the first 48 h of suspicion of AMI if no intervention undertaken. Samples will be collected and the following serum or plasma biomarkers measured at Tartu University Hospital laboratory: intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP), alpha-glutathione S-transferase (Alpha- GST), interleukin 6 (IL-6), procalcitonin (PCT), ischaemia-modified albumin (IMA), D-lactate, D-dimer, signal peptide-CUB-EGF domain-containing protein 1 (SCUBE-1) and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein (LBP). Additionally, more common laboratory markers will be measured in routine clinical practice at study sites. Diagnosis of AMI will be confirmed by computed tomography angiography, surgery, endoscopy or autopsy. Student's t or Wilcoxon rank tests will be used for comparisons between transmural vs. suspected (but not confirmed) AMI (comparison A), confirmed AMI of any stage vs suspected AMI (comparison B) and non-transmural AMI vs transmural AMI (comparison C). Optimal cut-off values for each comparison will be identified based on the AUROC analysis and likelihood ratios calculated. Positive likelihood ratio > 10 (> 5) and negative likelihood ratio < 0.1 (< 0.2) indicate high (moderate) diagnostic accuracy, respectively. All biomarkers with at least moderate accuracy will be entered as binary covariates (using the best cutoffs) into the multivariable stepwise regression analysis to identify the best combination of biomarkers for all comparisons separately. The best models for each comparison will be used to construct a practical score to distinguish between no AMI, non-transmural AMI and transmural AMI.DiscussionAs a result of this study, we aim to propose a score including set of biomarkers that can be used for diagnosis and decision-making in patients with suspected AMI.
|
|
