These guidelines were developed jointly by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the Surgical Infection Society (SIS), and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA). This work represents an update to the

/pdf/clinical-practice-guidelines-for-antimicrobial-prophylaxis-1gq1adk8ux.pdf

Clinical practice guidelines for antimicrobial prophylaxis in surgery

Background Severe pain after surgery remains a major problem, occurring in 20-40% of patients. Despite numerous published studies, the degree of pain following many types of surgery in everyday clinical practice is unknown. To improve postoperative pain therapy and develop procedure-specific, optimized pain-treatment protocols, types of surgery that may result in severe postoperative pain in everyday practice must first be identified. Methods This study considered 115,775 patients from 578 surgical wards in 105 German hospitals. A total of 70,764 patients met the inclusion criteria. On the first postoperative day, patients were asked to rate their worst pain intensity since surgery (numeric rating scale, 0-10). All surgical procedures were assigned to 529 well-defined groups. When a group contained fewer than 20 patients, the data were excluded from analysis. Finally, 50,523 patients from 179 surgical groups were compared. Results The 40 procedures with the highest pain scores (median numeric rating scale, 6-7) included 22 orthopedic/trauma procedures on the extremities. Patients reported high pain scores after many "minor" surgical procedures, including appendectomy, cholecystectomy, hemorrhoidectomy, and tonsillectomy, which ranked among the 25 procedures with highest pain intensities. A number of "major" abdominal surgeries resulted in comparatively low pain scores, often because of sufficient epidural analgesia. Conclusions Several common minor- to medium-level surgical procedures, including some with laparoscopic approaches, resulted in unexpectedly high levels of postoperative pain. To reduce the number of patients suffering from severe pain, patients undergoing so-called minor surgery should be monitored more closely, and postsurgical pain treatment needs to comply with existing procedure-specific pain-treatment recommendations.

/pdf/pain-intensity-on-the-first-day-after-surgery-a-prospective-20kef9foqu.pdf

Pain intensity on the first day after surgery: a prospective cohort study comparing 179 surgical procedures.

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(15)00275-5.pdf

Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management

Importance An increasing amount of evidence supports the use of antibiotics instead of surgery for treating patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Objective To compare antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis confirmed by computed tomography (CT). Design, Setting, and Participants The Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter, open-label, noninferiority randomized clinical trial was conducted from November 2009 until June 2012 in Finland. The trial enrolled 530 patients aged 18 to 60 years with uncomplicated acute appendicitis confirmed by a CT scan. Patients were randomly assigned to early appendectomy or antibiotic treatment with a 1-year follow-up period. Interventions Patients randomized to antibiotic therapy received intravenous ertapenem (1 g/d) for 3 days followed by 7 days of oral levofloxacin (500 mg once daily) and metronidazole (500 mg 3 times per day). Patients randomized to the surgical treatment group were assigned to undergo standard open appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point for the surgical intervention was the successful completion of an appendectomy. The primary end point for antibiotic-treated patients was discharge from the hospital without the need for surgery and no recurrent appendicitis during a 1-year follow-up period. Results There were 273 patients in the surgical group and 257 in the antibiotic group. Of 273 patients in the surgical group, all but 1 underwent successful appendectomy, resulting in a success rate of 99.6% (95% CI, 98.0% to 100.0%). In the antibiotic group, 70 patients (27.3%; 95% CI, 22.0% to 33.2%) underwent appendectomy within 1 year of initial presentation for appendicitis. Of the 256 patients available for follow-up in the antibiotic group, 186 (72.7%; 95% CI, 66.8% to 78.0%) did not require surgery. The intention-to-treat analysis yielded a difference in treatment efficacy between groups of −27.0% (95% CI, −31.6% to ∞) ( P  = .89). Given the prespecified noninferiority margin of 24%, we were unable to demonstrate noninferiority of antibiotic treatment relative to surgery. Of the 70 patients randomized to antibiotic treatment who subsequently underwent appendectomy, 58 (82.9%; 95% CI, 72.0% to 90.8%) had uncomplicated appendicitis, 7 (10.0%; 95% CI, 4.1% to 19.5%) had complicated acute appendicitis, and 5 (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.4% to 15.9%) did not have appendicitis but received appendectomy for suspected recurrence. There were no intra-abdominal abscesses or other major complications associated with delayed appendectomy in patients randomized to antibiotic treatment. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with CT-proven, uncomplicated appendicitis, antibiotic treatment did not meet the prespecified criterion for noninferiority compared with appendectomy. Most patients randomized to antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis did not require appendectomy during the 1-year follow-up period, and those who required appendectomy did not experience significant complications. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier:NCT01022567

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/2320315/joi150056.pdf

Antibiotic Therapy vs Appendectomy for Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: The APPAC Randomized Clinical Trial

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. 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. 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.

/pdf/diagnosis-and-treatment-of-acute-appendicitis-2020-update-of-4626c55liu.pdf

Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis: 2020 update of the WSES Jerusalem guidelines

Background
Laparoscopic surgery for acute appendicitis has been proposed to have advantages over conventional surgery.

Objectives
To compare the diagnostic and therapeutic effects of laparoscopic and conventional 'open' surgery.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CNKI, SciSearch, study registries, and the congress proceedings of endoscopic surgical societies.

Selection criteria
We included randomized clinical trials comparing laparoscopic (LA) versus open appendectomy (OA) in adults or children. Studies comparing immediate OA versus diagnostic laparoscopy (followed by LA or OA if necessary) were separately identified.

Data collection and analysis
Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Missing information or data was requested from the authors. We used odds ratios (OR), relative risks (RR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for analysis.

Main results
We included 67 studies, of which 56 compared LA (with or without diagnostic laparoscopy) vs. OA in adults. Wound infections were less likely after LA than after OA (OR 0.43; CI 0.34 to 0.54), but the incidence of intraabdominal abscesses was increased (OR 1.87; CI 1.19 to 2.93). The duration of surgery was 10 minutes (CI 6 to 15) longer for LA. Pain on day 1 after surgery was reduced after LA by 8 mm (CI 5 to 11 mm) on a 100 mm visual analogue scale. Hospital stay was shortened by 1.1 day (CI 0.7 to 1.5). Return to normal activity, work, and sport occurred earlier after LA than after OA. While the operation costs of LA were significantly higher, the costs outside hospital were reduced. Seven studies on children were included, but the results do not seem to be much different when compared to adults. Diagnostic laparoscopy reduced the risk of a negative appendectomy, but this effect was stronger in fertile women (RR 0.20; CI 0.11 to 0.34) as compared to unselected adults (RR 0.37; CI 0.13 to 1.01).

Authors' conclusions
In those clinical settings where surgical expertise and equipment are available and affordable, diagnostic laparoscopy and LA (either in combination or separately) seem to have various advantages over OA. Some of the clinical effects of LA, however, are small and of limited clinical relevance. In spite of the mediocre quality of the available research data, we would generally recommend to use laparoscopy and LA in patients with suspected appendicitis unless laparoscopy itself is contraindicated or not feasible. Especially young female, obese, and employed patients seem to benefit from LA.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

Background
Several systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing laparoscopic versus open appendectomy have been published, but there has been no overview of SRs of these two interventions. This overview (review of review) aims to summarise the results of such SRs in order to provide the most up to date evidence, and to highlight discordant results.

/pdf/laparoscopic-versus-open-appendectomy-in-patients-with-1yfp1rrczj.pdf

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Non-adherence is widespread problem. Adherence is a crucial point for the success and the safe use of therapies. The objective of this overview (review of reviews) was to identify factors that influence adherence in chronic physical conditions. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline and Embase (1990 to July 2013). Publications were screened according to predefined inclusion criteria. The study quality was assessed using AMSTAR. Both process steps were carried out independently by two reviewers. Relevant data on study characteristics and results were extracted in piloted standardized tables by one reviewer and checked by a second. Data were synthesized using a standardized quantitative approach by two reviewers. Seven systematic reviews were included. Higher education and employment seem to have a positive effect on adherence. Ethnic minorities seem to be less adherent. Co-payments and higher medication cost seems to have negative effect on adherence. In contrast financial status/income and marital status seem to have no influence on adherence. The effect of therapy related factors was mostly unclear or had no effect. Only the number of different medications in heart failure patients showed the tendency of an effect. Indicators of regime complexity showed consistently a negative effect direction. Duration of disease seems to have no effect on adherence. There is the tendency that higher or middle age is associated with higher adherence. But in more than half of the reviews the effect was unclear. There is no clear effect of physical as well as mental comorbidity. Only one review showed the tendency of an effect for mental comorbidity. Also for gender the effect is not clear because the effect direction was heterogenic between and within the systematic reviews. The presented overview shows factors than can potentially have influence on adherence. Only for a few factors the influence on adherence was consistent. Most factors showed heterogeneous results regarding statistical significance and/or effect direction. However, belonging to an ethnic minority, unemployment and cost for the patient for their medications showed consistently a negative effect on adherence which indicates that there is a social gradient.

/pdf/adherence-influencing-factors-a-systematic-review-of-wo3ma7fcd9.pdf

Adherence influencing factors – a systematic review of systematic reviews

Background
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures in Europe (and the world) and has become the standard procedure for the management of symptomatic cholelithiasis or acute cholecystitis in patients without specific contraindications. Bile duct injuries (BDI) are rare but serious complications that can occur during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Prevention and management of BDI has given rise to a host of publications but very few recommendations, especially in Europe.

/pdf/prevention-and-treatment-of-bile-duct-injuries-during-4roirdh68g.pdf

Prevention and treatment of bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

/pdf/jrhy-lprwskhwpykh-dr-mqbl-jrhy-bz-bry-mwrd-mshkhwkh-bh-2qj5cxt0ql.pdf

Thomas Jaschinski

Papers

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for suspected appendicitis

Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials

Adherence influencing factors – a systematic review of systematic reviews

Prevention and treatment of bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES).

جراحی لاپاروسکوپیک در مقابل جراحی باز برای موارد مشکوک به آپاندیسیت