Search

A best evidence topic has been constructed using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: for patients with suspected acute appendicitis can normal inflammatory markers rule out the diagnosis? Altogether 151 papers were found using the search strategy reported below. Seven were identified to provide the best evidence to answer the question. The author, journal, date, and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results, and study weaknesses were tabulated. In conclusion, six out of seven papers are more in favour with the concept that normal inflammatory markers cannot effectively rule out the diagnosis of acute appendicitis., Highlights • The aim is to asses the incidence of normal inflammatory markers among patients with acute appendicitis. • Seven articles were included in this best evidence topic. • Six articles agreed that normal inflammatory markers cannot exclude a diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Background: Deep sternal wound infections are a financially costly complication of cardiac surgery with serious implications for patient morbidity and mortality. Prophylactic antimicrobials have been shown to reduce the incidence of infection significantly. In 2018, the European Association for CardioThoracic Surgery (EACTS) provided clear guidance advising that third-generation cephalosporins are the first-line prophylactic antimicrobial of choice for cardiac surgery via median sternotomy as a result of their broad spectrum of activity and association with reduced postoperative mortality. Despite this guidance, it was believed that UK practice differed from this as a consequence of national concerns surrounding cephalosporins use and Clostridioides difficile infection. Methods: A survey was developed and distributed to all UK and Republic of Ireland (ROI) cardiac surgery centres in January 2019 to quantify this variation. Results: Of the 38 centres, 34 responded. Variation existed between the antimicrobial agent used, as well as the dosage, frequency and duration of suggested regimens even among centres using the same antimicrobial agent. The most common antimicrobial prophylaxis prescribed was a combination of flucloxacillin and gentamicin (16, 47%). Followed by cefuroxime (6, 17.6%) and cefuroxime combined with a glycopeptide (4, 11.7%). In patients colonised with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus or those with penicillin allergy gentamicin combined with teicoplanin was most common (42% and 50%, respectively). Discussion: This variation in antimicrobial agents and regimens may well contribute to the varying incidence of surgical site infection seen across the UK and ROI.

A Best Evidence Topic in general surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘Appendiceal phlegmon in adults: Do we know how to manage it yet?‘. Altogether 217 papers were found on Ovid Embase and Medline, 334 on PubMed and 13 on the Cochrane database using the reported search. From the screened articles, 5 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. We conclude that the best management method is conservative only treatment without interval appendicectomy. These patients must be followed up, including colonoscopy and/or CT imaging as indicated, to investigate for conditions such as inflammatory bowel disease or malignancy masquerading as appendicitis., Highlights • On-going controversy exists around the best management option for an appendiceal phlegmon. • Various articles advocate each of the following: early appendicectomy, interval appendicectomy and conservative management. • Therefore, we conducted a literature review in the format of a Best Evidence Topic to identify the best approach. • We conclude that the best management method is conservative only treatment without interval appendicectomy. • They must be followed up, including colonoscopy/imaging as indicated, to identify conditions masquerading as appendicitis. • Our suggestion is in direct contrast to the widely practiced method of interval appendicectomy.

A best evidence topic in general surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was whether early or interval appendicectomy provides a superior clinical outcome for children presenting with localised perforated appendix. Altogether 204 papers were found using the search strategy reported below; of which 5 were identified to provide the best evidence to answer the question. The author, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes, results, and study weaknesses were tabulated. We concluded that for children presenting with localised perforated appendix without abscess formation, early appendicectomy provides better clinical outcome in terms of lower complication and re-admission rate and shorter length of hospital stay., Highlights • There is controversy in the management of perforated appendicitis in children. • Limited studies focus on analysing free perforated appendicitis separately from appendicular abscess, mass and phlegmon. • Localised perforated appendicitis treated with early appendectomy have lower complication and re-admission rate.