Federico Coccolini

The NOTA Study (Non Operative Treatment for Acute Appendicitis): prospective study on the efficacy and safety of antibiotics (amoxicillin and clavulanic acid) for treating patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain and long-term follow-up of conservatively treated suspected appendicitis.

Objectives:To assess the safety and efficacy of antibiotics treatment for suspected acute uncomplicated appendicitis and to monitor the long term follow-up of non-operated patients. Background:Right lower quadrant abdominal pain is a common cause of emergency department admission. The natural history of acute appendicitis nonoperatively treated with antibiotics remains unclear. Methods:In 2010, a total of 159 patients [mean AIR (Appendicitis Inflammatory Response) score = 4.9 and mean Alvarado score = 5.2] with suspected appendicitis were enrolled and underwent nonoperative management (NOM) with amoxicillin/clavulanate. The follow-up period was 2 years. Results:Short-term (7 days) NOM failure rate was 11.9%. All patients with initial failures were operated within 7 days. At 15 days, no recurrences were recorded. After 2 years, the overall recurrence rate was 13.8% (22/159); 14 of 22 patients were successfully treated with further cycle of amoxicillin/clavulanate. No major side effects occurred. Abdominal pain assessed by the Numeric Rating Scale and the visual analog scale; median Numeric Rating Scale score was 3 at 5 days and 2 after 7 days. Mean length of stay of nonoperatively managed patients was 0.4 days, and mean sick leave period was 5.8 days. Long-term efficacy of NOM treatment was 83% (118 patients recurrence free and 14 patients with recurrence nonoperatively managed). None of the single factors forming the Alvarado or AIR score were independent predictors of failure of NOM or long-term recurrence. Alvarado and AIR scores were the only independent predictive factors of NOM failure after multivariate analysis, but both did not correlate with recurrences. Overall costs of NOM and antibiotics were &OV0556;316.20 per patient. Conclusions:Antibiotics for suspected acute appendicitis are safe and effective and may avoid unnecessary appendectomy, reducing operation rate, surgical risks, and overall costs. After 2 years of follow-up, recurrences of nonoperatively treated right lower quadrant abdominal pain are less than 14% and may be safely and effectively treated with further antibiotics.

Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO): 2013 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group

BackgroundIn 2013 Guidelines on diagnosis and management of ASBO have been revised and updated by the WSES Working Group on ASBO to develop current evidence-based algorithms and focus indications and safety of conservative treatment, timing of surgery and indications for laparoscopy.RecommendationsIn absence of signs of strangulation and history of persistent vomiting or combined CT-scan signs (free fluid, mesenteric edema, small-bowel feces sign, devascularization) patients with partial ASBO can be managed safely with NOM and tube decompression should be attempted. These patients are good candidates for Water-Soluble-Contrast-Medium (WSCM) with both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The radiologic appearance of WSCM in the colon within 24 hours from administration predicts resolution. WSCM maybe administered either orally or via NGT both immediately at admission or after failed conservative treatment for 48 hours. The use of WSCM is safe and reduces need for surgery, time to resolution and hospital stay.NOM, in absence of signs of strangulation or peritonitis, can be prolonged up to 72 hours. After 72 hours of NOM without resolution, surgery is recommended.Patients treated non-operatively have shorter hospital stay, but higher recurrence rate and shorter time to re-admission, although the risk of new surgically treated episodes of ASBO is unchanged. Risk factors for recurrences are age <40 years and matted adhesions. WSCM does not decrease recurrence rates or recurrences needing surgery.Open surgery is often used for strangulating ASBO as well as after failed conservative management. In selected patients and with appropriate skills, laparoscopic approach is advisable using open access technique. Access in left upper quadrant or left flank is the safest and only completely obstructing adhesions should be identified and lysed with cold scissors. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis should be attempted preferably if first episode of SBO and/or anticipated single band. A low threshold for open conversion should be maintained.Peritoneal adhesions should be prevented. Hyaluronic acid-carboxycellulose membrane and icodextrin decrease incidence of adhesions. Icodextrin may reduce the risk of re-obstruction. HA cannot reduce need of surgery.Adhesions quantification and scoring maybe useful for achieving standardized assessment of adhesions severity and for further research in diagnosis and treatment of ASBO.

Surgery versus Conservative Antibiotic Treatment in Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background/Aims: Although standard treatment typically consists of an early appendectomy, there has recently been an increase in the use of antibiotic therapy as primary treatment for acute appendicitis (AA). The aim of this analysis is to systematically evaluate the evidence available in relevant literature in order to compare the relative effectiveness of antibiotic therapy as a viable alternative to appendectomies in the treatment of AA. Methods: Literature was searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of surgery versus antibiotic therapy. Differences in pooled odds ratios (OR) for outcomes within 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. Results: Four RCTs were identified including 741 patients. Efficacy was significantly higher for surgery (OR = 6.01, 95% CI = 4.27–8.46). No differences were found in the numbers of perforated appendices (OR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.29–1.84) and patients treated with antibiotics (OR = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.00–3.27). Complication rates were significantly higher for surgery (OR = 1.92, 95% CI = 1.30–2.85). Conclusion: Although a nonsurgical approach in AA can reduce the complications rate, the lower efficacy prevents antibiotic treatment from being a viable alternative to surgery. Since only a small number of RCTs of poor methodological quality are available, well-designed RCTs are needed for further investigation.

WSES Jerusalem guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis

Acute appendicitis (AA) is among the most common cause of acute abdominal pain. Diagnosis of AA is challenging; a variable combination of clinical signs and symptoms has been used together with laboratory findings in several scoring systems proposed for suggesting the probability of AA and the possible subsequent management pathway. The role of imaging in the diagnosis of AA is still debated, with variable use of US, CT and MRI in different settings worldwide. Up to date, comprehensive clinical guidelines for diagnosis and management of AA have never been issued. In July 2015, during the 3rd World Congress of the WSES, held in Jerusalem (Israel), a panel of experts including an Organizational Committee and Scientific Committee and Scientific Secretariat, participated to a Consensus Conference where eight panelists presented a number of statements developed for each of the eight main questions about diagnosis and management of AA. The statements were then voted, eventually modified and finally approved by the participants to The Consensus Conference and lately by the board of co-authors. The current paper is reporting the definitive Guidelines Statements on each of the following topics: 1) Diagnostic efficiency of clinical scoring systems, 2) Role of Imaging, 3) Non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis, 4) Timing of appendectomy and in-hospital delay, 5) Surgical treatment 6) Scoring systems for intra-operative grading of appendicitis and their clinical usefulness 7) Non-surgical treatment for complicated appendicitis: abscess or phlegmon 8) Pre-operative and post-operative antibiotics.

Inguinal hernia repair with porcine small intestine submucosa: 3-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled trial of Lichtenstein's repair with polypropylene mesh versus Surgisis Inguinal Hernia Matrix.

BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Lichtensteins hernioplasty using Surgisis Inguinal Hernia Matrix (SIHM; Cook, Bloomington, Indiana) compared with polypropylene (PP; Angiologica, Pavia, Italy). METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial comparing Lichtensteins inguinal hernioplasty using SIHM versus PP. RESULTS Seventy male patients underwent Lichtensteins hernioplasty (n = 35 in the SIHM group and n = 35 in the PP group). At 3 years after surgery, there were 2 deaths (5.7%) in the PP group and 1 death (2.9%) in the SIHM group (not significant [NS]). Although the study was underpowered to evaluate the recurrence rate, only 1 recurrence (2.9%) was seen in the PP group (NS). Although a significant decrease in postsurgical pain incidence was never observed among patients in the SIHM group, a significantly lower degree of pain was detected at rest and on coughing at 1, 3, and 6 months and on movement at 1, 3, and 6 months and 1, 2, and 3 years. A significant decrease in postsurgical incidence and degree of discomfort when coughing and moving were observed among patients in the SIHM group at 3 and 6 months and at 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery. COMMENTS SIHM hernioplasty seems to be a safe and effective procedure.

Complicated intra-abdominal infections in Europe: a comprehensive review of the CIAO study

The CIAO Study (“C omplicated Intra-A bdominal infection O bservational” Study) is a multicenter investigation performed in 68 medical institutions throughout Europe over the course of a 6-month observational period (January-June 2012).Patients with either community-acquired or healthcare-associated complicated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) were included in the study.2,152 patients with a mean age of 53.8 years (range: 4–98 years) were enrolled in the study. 46.3% of the patients were women and 53.7% were men. Intraperitoneal specimens were collected from 62.2% of the enrolled patients, and from these samples, a variety of microorganisms were collectively identified.The overall mortality rate was 7.5% (163/2.152).According to multivariate analysis of the compiled data, several criteria were found to be independent variables predictive of patient mortality, including patient age, the presence of an intestinal non-appendicular source of infection (colonic non-diverticular perforation, complicated diverticulitis, small bowel perforation), a delayed initial intervention (a delay exceeding 24 hours), sepsis and septic shock in the immediate post-operative period, and ICU admission.Given the sweeping geographical distribution of the participating medical centers, the CIAO Study gives an accurate description of the epidemiological, clinical, microbiological, and treatment profiles of complicated intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) throughout Europe.

The role of the open abdomen procedure in managing severe abdominal sepsis: WSES position paper

The open abdomen (OA) procedure is a significant surgical advance, as part of damage control techniques in severe abdominal trauma. Its application can be adapted to the advantage of patients with severe abdominal sepsis, however its precise role in these patients is still not clear.In severe abdominal sepsis the OA may allow early identification and draining of any residual infection, control any persistent source of infection, and remove more effectively infected or cytokine-loaded peritoneal fluid, preventing abdominal compartment syndrome and deferring definitive intervention and anastomosis until the patient is appropriately resuscitated and hemodynamically stable and thus better able to heal.However, the OA may require multiple returns to the operating room and may be associated with significant complications, including enteroatmospheric fistulas, loss of abdominal wall domain and large hernias.Surgeons should be aware of the pathophysiology of severe intra-abdominal sepsis and always keep in mind the option of using open abdomen to be able to use it in the right patient at the right time.

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

BackgroundIn 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.DesignThe 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 RegistrationTRIAL 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.

The Treatment of Peritoneal Carcinomatosis in Advanced Gastric Cancer: State of the Art

Gastric cancer (GC) is the fourth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in the world; 53–60% of patients show disease progression and die of peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC). PC of gastric origin has an extremely inauspicious prognosis with a median survival estimate at 1–3 months. Different studies presented contrasting data about survival rates; however, all agreed with the necessity of a complete cytoreduction to improve survival. Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has an adjuvant role in preventing peritoneal recurrences. A multidisciplinary approach should be empowered: the association of neoadjuvant intraperitoneal and systemic chemotherapy (NIPS), cytoreductive surgery (CRS), HIPEC, and early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) could increase the rate of completeness of cytoreduction (CC) and consequently survival rates, especially in patients with Peritoneal Cancer Index (PCI) ≤6. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy may improve survival also in PC from GC and adjuvant chemotherapy could prevent recurrence. In the last decade an interesting new drug, called Catumaxomab, has been developed in Germany. Two studies showed that this drug seems to improve progression-free survival in patients with GC; however, final results for both studies have still to be published.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing endoscopic stenting and surgical decompression for colorectal cancer obstruction

PurposeSurgical decompression is the traditional treatment for acute colorectal cancer obstruction. In recent years, colorectal stenting has been used to relieve the obstruction. This study used meta-analytic techniques to compare colonic stenting versus surgical decompression for colorectal cancer obstruction.MethodsA comprehensive search of several databases was conducted. The search identified 321 potential abstracts and titles of which eight randomized trials involving 353 patients were retrieved in full text. A meta-analysis of the studies included was carried out to identify the differences in outcomes between the two procedures.ResultsThe pooled analysis showed no significant differences for mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.91) and morbidity (OR 2.05) rates between the two strategies while the permanent stoma creation rate was significantly higher in the surgical group as compared to the stent group (OR 3.12). By comparing surgery and colonic stenting in studies which analyzed the use of stenting as a “bridge to surgery,” the pooled analysis showed that primary anastomosis was more frequent in the stent group as compared to the surgical group (OR 0.42), and the stoma creation was more frequent in the surgical group as compared to the stent group (OR 2.36).ConclusionOur study suggested that, in patients with acute colorectal cancer obstruction, stent placement improved several outcomes, such as primary anastomosis, stoma formation, and permanent stoma, while it failed to show an improvement in mortality and morbidity risk.