Abstract Introduction Recurrence risk affects management of colonic volvulus but whether it increases with repeated episodes is unknown. Methods A retrospective cohort study across the Swedish Southeast healthcare region (population 1.1 million) identified all patients diagnosed with colonic volvulus 2010–2022 with review of medical records. Results 442 patients with a first CT-verified episode of colonic volvulus were included; 202 caecal volvulus (CV) and 240 sigmoid volvulus (SV). The annual incidence was 3.26 per 100 000 (CV 1.77; SV 1.49)) and did not change over time. CV predominantly affected women (80.2%) and younger patients (median 64.8 versus 73.6 years (P < 0.001)), while SV were more frequent in men (64.2%, P < 0.001). Prior abdominal surgery was more common in CV. Neurological and psychiatric conditions, constipation, and nursing home residence were more frequent in SV. CV was treated with emergency surgery in 98.0%. In SV, first-line treatment of the index episode was mainly non-operative management (NOM; contrast enema 78.3%, endoscopy 7.1%) successful in 86.8%. A further 3.8% resolved spontaneously. Emergency surgery was first-line treatment in 10.8% and second-line after failed NOM in 11.3%. The 1-year recurrence risk after NOM was 54.7% (95% c.i. 46.5–63.4%) after the index episode but gradually increased with each repeated episode to 92.2% (70.5–99.5%) after the fourth (adjusted hazard ratio 2.8 (1.5–5.1)). Recurrence after surgery was rare (n = 3). Discussion NOM is successful in most SV but the recurrence risk increases with each repeated episode. Elective surgery should be considered after a second episode but balanced against frailty.

Abstract Background Clinical scoring algorithms are cost efficient in patients with suspicion of acute appendicitis. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic properties of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score compared with the Alvarado score. Methods The PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases were searched for reports on the diagnostic properties of the AIR score from 2008 to July 18, 2024. A meta-analysis of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area and the sensitivity and specificity for all and advanced appendicitis patients was performed. Advanced appendicitis was defined as perforated or gangrenous appendicitis or appendicitis abscess or phlegmon or if described as complicated appendicitis. The risk of bias was estimated via the QUADAS-2 tool. The ROC areas of the AIR score and the Alvarado score were compared. Results A total of 26 reports with a total of 15.699 patients were included. The area under the ROC curve for the AIR score was 0.86 (95% CI 0.83–0.88) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.93 (CI 0.91–0.96) for those with advanced appendicitis, which was greater than the corresponding areas for the Alvarado score (0.79, CI 0.76; 0.81) and 0.88, CI 0.82; 0.95), respectively. At > 4 points, the sensitivity was 0.91 (CI 0.88; 0.94) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.95 (CI 0.94; 0.97) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 3 points, the sensitivity was 0.95 (0.90; 0.97) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. At > 8 points, the specificity was 0.98 (0.97; 0.99) for all patients with appendicitis and 0.99 (0.97; 0.99) for those with advanced appendicitis. The included studies had a low risk for bias and low heterogeneity. Conclusion The AIR score has a better diagnostic capacity than the Alvarado score does. The AIR score is a safe and efficient basis for risk-stratified management of patients suspected of having appendicitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increases the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Previous studies concluded that primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) is an independent risk factor for CRC in IBD. We aimed to investigate the impact of IBD and PSC on the risk of developing CRC, mortality, and colectomy. METHODS:Patients with IBD diagnosed between 1969 and 2014 were identified from the Swedish National Patient Register, together with 5 matched controls per case from the background population. We estimated the impact of some risk factors including PSC± on the risk of CRC and mortality in the patients with IBD compared with that in the controls, and colectomy within the IBD cohort. RESULTS:Among all patients with IBD, the hazard ratio (HR) of CRC was 1.83 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-1.96; P < .001). The risk was highest in the PSC+ patients initially but decreased over time. PSC+ patients diagnosed with IBD ≤20 years of age had a highly increased risk with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 74.97 (95% CI, 44.7-126.1; P < .001) compared with controls. PSC+ patients had 9 to 16 times higher risk of cancer in cecum/ascending, transverse, and descending colon compared with sporadic CRC among controls. Synchronous cancer was found in 4.7% of PSC+ patients, 4.4% of PSC- patients, and 1.9% among controls (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with IBD have an increased risk of CRC, mostly prominent among young PSC+ patients. PSC+ patients display a tendency to develop CRC in the proximal colon and more synchronous CRC. This should be considered when monitoring and counseling patients with IBD.

BACKGROUND:Appendiceal adenocarcinomas and low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasms (LAMNs) are rare tumours. Much of the existing knowledge is derived from registry-based studies, particularly the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database in the USA. METHODS:This retrospective cohort study used data from the Swedish Cancer Registry, Swedish Cause of Death Registry, and the National Patient Registry to analyse demographic characteristics and outcomes of patients diagnosed with appendiceal adenocarcinoma or LAMN between 2005 and 2019. Kaplan-Meier survivor function, multivariate Cox regression analysis, standardized mortality ratio, and net survival were used to assess survival. Incidence was estimated by direct standardization from 2005 to 2019. RESULTS:In all, 1159 patients with appendiceal neoplasms were included, with a mean age at diagnosis of 63.3 years. The incidence of adenocarcinomas was stable, whereas the incidence of LAMNs increased from 2012 onwards. Patients with non-mucinous adenocarcinomas who underwent colonic resection had better survival outcomes than patients treated with appendicectomy alone. For mucinous adenocarcinomas, colonic resection did not improve survival outcomes compared with appendicectomy. Patients with non-mucinous adenocarcinoma, mucinous adenocarcinoma, or LAMN who underwent cytoreductive surgery and heated intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) had favourable overall and net survival. CONCLUSION:Colonic resection increased survival only for patients with non-mucinous adenocarcinomas. Since 2012, the incidence of LAMN has increased, most likely due to changes in diagnostic and coding practices, but the incidence of appendiceal adenocarcinomas has remained stable. The survival benefit of CRS-HIPEC is observed in a very specific patient population, emphasizing the importance of careful patient selection.

Background Acute appendicitis is one of the most common causes of acute abdominal pain. Differences in the management of this large group of patients has important consequences for the patients and the healthcare system. Controversies regarding the understanding of the natural course of the disease, the utility of new diagnostic methods, and alternative treatments have lead to large variations in practice patterns between centres. These national guidelines present evidence-based recommendations aiming at a uniform, safe and cost-efficient management of this large group of patients. Method A working group of six experts with broad clinical and research experience was formed. Additional expertise from outside was consulted during the process. A national survey revealed significant variations in the management of patients with suspicion of appendicitis. The evidence provided in published guidelines and reviews were extracted and systematically graded, according to the GRADE methodology. This was supplemented by additional more recent and more directed search of the literature. Patients treated for appendicitis were involved through interviews. The guidelines were reviewed by external experts before the final version was determined. Results The guidelines cover an extensive number of issues: pathology, epidemiology, aetiology, natural history, clinical and laboratory diagnosis, diagnostic scoring systems, diagnostic imaging, treatment, nursing care, follow-up, quality registers and quality indicators, among others. Special considerations related to children and pregnant women are covered. Conclusion These national guidelines present an extensive and thorough review of the current knowledge base related to appendicitis, and provide up-to-date evidence-based recommendations for the management of this large group of patients.

OBJECTIVES:Appendicitis poses diagnostic challenges. A correct diagnosis is important during pregnancy to avoid unnecessary surgery on the one hand and delayed surgery on the other hand, as both may negatively affect pregnancy outcomes. Clinical scores for risk-stratified management of suspected appendicitis are well established in adults but have not been validated during pregnancy. This nested case-control study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score and imaging during pregnancy. METHODS:By cross-linking national Swedish health registries from a defined geographical area, we identified a cohort of 154 women who underwent appendectomy for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy and a matched cohort of 232 pregnant women admitted for acute abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis but with a discharge diagnosis of nonspecific abdominal pain (NSAP). All variables were extracted from medical records. The diagnostic value of AIR score and imaging was estimated for patients with a final diagnosis of appendicitis compared with patients with negative appendectomy and NSAP patients. RESULTS:The final diagnoses for the operated patients were uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in 49.4% and 26.6%, respectively, and negative appendectomy in 24.0%. Nearly half of all the patients underwent diagnostic imaging (41%), mainly by ultrasonography. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic imaging were 44.9% (95% CI 32.9%-57.4%) and 42.2% (95% CI 31.9%-53.1%), respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of AIR score was 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.92) for all appendicitis and 0.90 (95% CI 0.84-0.95) for complicated appendicitis. The sensitivity for complicated appendicitis was 100% at a score of ≥4. The specificity for all appendicitis was 97% at a score of ≥9. CONCLUSIONS:The results of this study suggest that the AIR score may be a suitable diagnostic tool for risk stratification of pregnant women with abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis but further validation among pregnant women is needed.

ObjectivesColectomy and subsequent bowel reconstruction in women with ulcerative colitis (UC) is associated with decreased fertility, this survey aims to investigate possible reasons for this.Material and methodsWomen with UC aged 18-44 years at colectomy 2000-2020 were identified and data were retrieved from the Swedish inflammatory bowel disease register (SWIBREG). Additional information was obtained using a study-specific questionnaire.ResultsThe survey was completed by 214 (72.8%) out of 294 eligible women. Mean age at disease onset was 22.9 years (standard deviation 0.5). No reconstruction was made in 67 (31.3%) women, whereof 24 (35.8%) had a completion proctectomy. Reconstruction was performed with ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) in 66 (30.8%) women and ileal pouch anal anastomosis (IPAA) in 81 (37.9%). Included women had on average 1.67 children (95% confidence interval 1.53-1.81) at the end of follow-up. The desire to have children was negatively affected by disease onset (59.4%), colectomy (44.9%) and reconstruction (36.7%). Altogether, 39.4% estimated that they had fewer children and 9.5% restrained completely from having children because of the disease. Difficulties to conceive were reported by 36.5% including 18.9% who expressed that they could not conceive at all. Difficulties to conceive was more common after reconstruction with IPAA (Odds Ratio [OR] 5.54) than IRA (OR 2.57).ConclusionsA majority of women with UC and colectomy expressed that the disease affected their desire to have children, more often limiting the number of children than completely refraining. For childless patients, difficulties to conceive was more common than voluntary childlessness.

BACKGROUND: Kock’s continent ileostomy is an option after proctocolectomy for patients not suitable for IPAA or ileorectal anastomosis. Ulcerative colitis is the most common indication for continent ileostomy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcome of continent ileostomy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort register study. SETTINGS: Data were obtained from the Swedish National Patient Registry. PATIENTS: All patients with IBD and a continent ileostomy were identified. Data on demographics, diagnosis, reoperations, and excisions of the continent ileostomy were obtained. Patients with inconsistent diagnostic coding were classified as IBD-unclassified. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were number of reoperations, time to reoperations, and time to excision of continent ileostomy. RESULTS: We identified 727 patients, 428 (59%) with ulcerative colitis, 45 (6%) with Crohn’s disease, and 254 (35%) with IBD-unclassified. After a median follow-up time of 27 (interquartile range, 21–31) years, 191 patients (26%) never had revision surgery. Some 1484 reoperations were performed on 536 patients (74%), and the median number of reoperations was 1 (interquartile range, 0–3) per patient. The continent ileostomy was excised in 77 patients (11%). Reoperation within the first year after reconstruction was associated with a higher rate of revisions (incidence rate ratio, 2.90; p < 0.001) and shorter time to excision (HR 2.38; p < 0.001). Constructing the continent ileostomy after year 2000 was associated with increased revision and excision rates (incidence rate ratio, 2.7; p < 0.001 and HR 2.74; p = 0.013). IBD-unclassified was associated with increased revisions (incidence rate ratio, 1.3; p < 0.001)‚ and the proportion of IBD-unclassified patients almost doubled from the 1980s (32%) to after 2000 (50%). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design, data from a register, and no data on quality of life were available were the limitations of this study. CONCLUSION: Continent ileostomy is associated with substantial need for revision surgery, but most patients keep their reconstruction for a long time. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C122. REOPERACIONES Y SUPERVIVENCIA A LARGO PLAZO DE LA ILEOSTOMÍA CONTINENTE DE KOCK EN PACIENTES CON ENFERMEDAD INFLAMATORIA INTESTINAL: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE NACIONAL BASADO EN LA POBLACIÓN DE SUECIA ANTECEDENTES: La ileostomía continente de Kock es una opción después de la proctocolectomía para los pacientes que no son aptos para la anastomosis ileoanal con reservorio o la anastomosis ileorrectal. La colitis ulcerativa es la indicación más común para la ileostomía continente. OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el resultado a largo plazo de la ileostomía continente. DISEÑO: Estudio de registro de cohorte retrospectivo. AJUSTES: Los datos se obtuvieron del Registro Nacional de Pacientes de Suecia. PACIENTES: Se identificaron todos los pacientes con enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal e ileostomía continente. Se obtuvieron datos demograficos, diagnóstico, reoperaciones y extirpaciones de la ileostomía continente. Los pacientes con codificación diagnóstica inconsistente se clasificaron como no clasificados con EII. PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO: Las principales medidas de resultado fueron el número de reoperaciones, el tiempo hasta las reoperaciones y el tiempo hasta la escisión de la ileostomía continente. RESULTADOS: Identificamos 727 pacientes, 428 (59%) con colitis ulcerativa, 45 (6%) con enfermedad de Crohn y 254 (35%) con EII no clasificada. Después de una mediana de tiempo de seguimiento de 27 (IQR 21–31) años, 191 (26%) pacientes nunca se habían sometido a una cirugía de revisión. Se realizaron 1.484 reintervenciones en 536 (74%) pacientes, la mediana de reintervenciones fue de 1 (RIC 0–3) por paciente. La ileostomía continente se extirpó en 77 (11%) pacientes. La reoperación dentro del primer año después de la reconstrucción se asoció con una mayor tasa de revisiones (IRR 2,90 p < 0,001) y un tiempo más corto hasta la escisión (HR 2,38 p < 0,001). La construcción de la ileostomía continente después del año 2000 se asoció con mayores tasas de revisión y escisión (IRR 2,7 p < 0,001 y HR 2,74 p = 0,013). La EII no clasificada se asoció con un aumento de las revisiones (IRR 1,3 p < 0,001) y la proporción de pacientes con EII no clasificada casi se duplicó desde la década de 1980 (32%) hasta después de 2000 (50%). LIMITACIONES: Diseño retrospectivo, datos de registro. No hay datos disponibles sobre la calidad de vida. CONCLUSIÓN: La ileostomía continente se asocia con una necesidad sustancial de cirugía de revisión, pero la mayoría de los pacientes logran mantener su reconstrucción durante mucho tiempo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C122. (Traducción—Dr. Yolanda Colorado)

BackgroundReports of an increased proportion of complicated appendicitis during the Covid-19 pandemic suggest a worse outcome due to delay secondary to the restrained access to health care, but may be explained by a concomitant decrease in uncomplicated appendicitis. We analyze the impact of the pandemic on the incidences of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis.MethodWe did a systematic literature search in the PubMed, Embase and Web Of Science databases on December 21, 2022 with the search terms (appendicitis OR appendectomy) AND ("COVID" OR SARS-Cov2 OR "coronavirus"). Studies reporting the number of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis during identical calendar periods in 2020 and the pre-pandemic year(s) were included. Reports with indications suggesting a change in how the patients were diagnosed and managed between the two periods were excluded. No protocol was prepared in advance. We did random effects meta-analysis of the change in proportion of complicated appendicitis, expressed as the risk ratio (RR), and of the change in number of patients with complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis during the pandemic compared with pre-pandemic periods, expressed as the incidence ratio (IR). We did separate analyses for studies based on single- and multi-center and regional data, age-categories and prehospital delay.ResultsThe meta-analysis of 100,059 patients in 63 reports from 25 countries shows an increase in the proportion of complicated appendicitis during the pandemic period (RR 1.39, 95% confidence interval (95% CI 1.25, 1.53). This was mainly explained by a decreased incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis (incidence ratio (IR) 0.66, 95% CI 0.59, 0.73). No increase in complicated appendicitis was seen in multi-center and regional reports combined (IR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90, 1.07).ConclusionThe increased proportion of complicated appendicitis during Covid-19 is explained by a decrease in the incidence of uncomplicated appendicitis, whereas the incidence of complicated appendicitis remained stable. This result is more evident in the multi-center and regional based reports. This suggests an increase in spontaneously resolving appendicitis due to the restrained access to health care. This has important principal implications for the management of patients with suspected appendicitis.

Background and Aims Colectomy and reconstruction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] may adversely affect fertility, but few population-based studies on this subject are available. Methods Fertility was assessed in 2989 women and 3771 men with IBD and prior colectomy during 1964-2014, identified from the Swedish National Patient Register, and in 35 092 matched individuals. Results Reconstruction with ileoanal pouch anastomosis [IPAA] was as common as ileorectal anastomosis [IRA] in ulcerative colitis [UC] and IBD-unclassified [IBD-U] but rare in Crohn's disease [CD]. Compared with the matched reference cohort, women with IBD had lower fertility overall after colectomy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.65, confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.69), with least impact with leaving the rectum intact [HR 0.79, CI 0.70-0.90]. Compared with colectomy only, fertility in female patients remained unaffected after IRA [HR 0.86, CI 0.63-1.17 for UC, 0.86, CI 0.68-1.08 for IBD-U and 1.07, CI 0.70-1.63 for CD], but was impaired after IPAA, especially in UC [HR 0.67, CI 0.50-0.88], and after completion proctectomy [HR 0.65, CI 0.49-0.85 for UC, 0.68, CI 0.55-0.85 for IBD-U and 0.61, CI 0.38-0.96 for CD]. In men, fertility was marginally reduced following colectomy [HR 0.89, CI 0.85-0.94], regardless of reconstruction. Conclusions Fertility was reduced in women after colectomy for IBD. The least impact was seen when a deviated rectum was left intact. IRA was associated with no further reduction in fertility, whereas proctectomy and IPAA were associated with the strongest impairment. IRA therefore seems to be the preferred reconstruction to preserve fertility in selected female patients. Fertility in men was only moderately reduced after colectomy.

Abstract Background Colectomy and reconstruction in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) may adversely affect fertility, but few population-based studies are available. Methods Fertility was assessed in 2,989 women and 3,771 men with IBD and prior colectomy 1964-2014, identified from the Swedish National Patient Register, and 35,092 matched population-based individuals. Results Reconstruction with ileoanal pouch anastomosis (IPAA) was as common as ileorectal anastomosis (IRA) in ulcerative colitis (UC) and IBD-unclassified (IBD-U) while rare in Crohn’s disease (CD). Compared with the matched non-IBD cohort, women with IBD had lower fertility overall post colectomy (HR 0.65, CI 0.61-0.69). The impact was least in patients with colectomy only with the rectum left intact (HR 0.79, CI 0.70–0.90) and more pronounced after reconstructive surgery. Comparing the surgical options within the cohort of women with colectomy for IBD using colectomy only as reference, fertility in female patients remained unaffected after IRA (HR 0.86, CI 0.63-1.17 for UC, 0.86, CI 0.68-1.08 for IBD-U and 1.07, CI 0.70-1.63 for CD), but was impaired after IPAA, especially in UC (HR 0.67 CI 0.50-0.88), and after completion proctectomy (HR 0.65, CI 0.49-0.85 for UC, 0.68, CI 0.55-0.85 for IBD-U and 0.61, CI 0.38-0.96 for CD). In men, fertility was marginally reduced in the entire cohort post colectomy (HR 0.89, CI 0.85-0.94), regardless of reconstruction. Conclusion Fertility was reduced in women after colectomy for IBD. The least impact was seen with a deviated rectum left in situ. IRA was associated with no further reduction in fertility, whereas proctectomy with or without IPAA were associated with the strongest impairment. IRA therefore seems to be the preferred reconstruction to preserve fertility in selected female patients. Fertility in men was only moderately reduced after colectomy and reconstructive choice.

Abstract Background Esophageal perforation is a rare and life-threatening condition with several treatment options. The aim was to assess the incidence, type of treatment and mortality of esophageal perforations in Sweden and to identify risk factors for 90-day mortality. Method All patients admitted with an esophageal perforation from 2007 to 2017 were identified from the National Patient Register. Mortality was assessed by linkage with the Cause of Death Registry. We analyze the incidence and the impact of age, sex, comorbidities on mortality. Results 879 patients with esophageal perforation were identified, giving an incidence rate of 1.09 per 100,000 person-years. The median age at diagnosis was 68.8 years and 60% were men. The mortality was 26% at 90 days. Independent risk factors for death within 90 days were age (odds ratio (OR): 6.20; 95% (confidence interval) CI: 2.16–17.79 at 60–74 years and OR: 11.58; 95% CI: 4.04–33.15 at 75 years or older), peripheral vascular disease (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.44–5.92) and underlying malignant disease (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: 3.86–9.03). In patients younger than 45 years, survival was lower among women than among men (at 5 years 73 and 93%, respectively). The cause of death among young women was often drug-related or suicide. Conclusions 90-day mortality was 26%, old age, vascular disease and underlying malignant disease were risk factors.

Gudjonsdottir et al validated four clinical prediction scores for appendicitis in children.[1] The Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score and Pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) had the best performance. A recent validation of the AIR score (AIR2) recommended an adjustment of the low-risk interval to 0 to 3 points compared with 0 to 4 in the design study.[2] This new interval does not change the final conclusion in the study by Gudjonsdottir et al but gives a different result ([Table 1]) worth a comment.

To compare the number of appendicitis cases and its complications, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Sweden and the UK and the corresponding time period in 2019. Reports of emergency abdominopelvic CT performed at 56 Swedish hospitals and 38 British hospitals between April and July 2020 and a corresponding control cohort from 2019 were reviewed. Two radiologists and two surgeons blinded to the date of cohorts analyzed all reports for diagnosis of appendicitis, perforation, and abscess. A random selection of cases was chosen for the measurement of inter-rater agreement. Both in Sweden (6111) and the UK (5591) fewer, abdominopelvic CT scans were done in 2020 compared to 2019 (6433 and 7223, respectively); p < 0.001. In the UK, the number of appendicitis was 36% lower in April–June 2020 compared to 2019 but not in Sweden. Among the appendicitis cases, there was a higher number of perforations and abscesses in 2020, in Sweden. In the UK, the number of perforations and abscesses were initially lower (April–June 2020) but increased in July 2020. There was a substantial inter-rater agreement for the diagnosis of perforations and abscess formations (K = 0.64 and 0.77). In Sweden, the number of appendicitis was not different between 2019 and 2020; however, there was an increase of complications. In the UK, there was a significant decrease of cases in 2020. The prevalence of complications was lower initially but increased in July. These findings suggest variability in delay in diagnosis of appendicitis depending on the country and time frame studied.

Bile duct injury (BDI) is a dangerous complication of cholecystectomy, with significant postoperative sequelae for the patient in terms of morbidity, mortality, and long-term quality of life. BDIs have an estimated incidence of 0.4–1.5%, but considering the number of cholecystectomies performed worldwide, mostly by laparoscopy, surgeons must be prepared to manage this surgical challenge. Most BDIs are recognized either during the procedure or in the immediate postoperative period. However, some BDIs may be discovered later during the postoperative period, and this may translate to delayed or inappropriate treatments. Providing a specific diagnosis and a precise description of the BDI will expedite the decision-making process and increase the chance of treatment success. Subsequently, the choice and timing of the appropriate reconstructive strategy have a critical role in long-term prognosis. Currently, a wide spectrum of multidisciplinary interventions with different degrees of invasiveness is indicated for BDI management. These World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines have been produced following an exhaustive review of the current literature and an international expert panel discussion with the aim of providing evidence-based recommendations to facilitate and standardize the detection and management of BDIs during cholecystectomy. In particular, the 2020 WSES guidelines cover the following key aspects: (1) strategies to minimize the risk of BDI during cholecystectomy; (2) BDI rates in general surgery units and review of surgical practice; (3) how to classify, stage, and report BDI once detected; (4) how to manage an intraoperatively detected BDI; (5) indications for antibiotic treatment; (6) indications for clinical, biochemical, and imaging investigations for suspected BDI; and (7) how to manage a postoperatively detected BDI.

Patients with suspicion of appendicitis present with a wide range of severity. Score-based risk stratification can optimise the management of these patients. This prospective study validates the Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score in patients with suspicion of appendicitis. Consecutive patients over the age of five with suspicion of appendicitis presenting at 25 Swedish hospital’s emergency departments were prospectively included. The diagnostic properties of the AIR score are estimated. Some 3878 patients were included, 821 with uncomplicated and 724 with complicated appendicitis, 1986 with non-specific abdominal pain and 347 with other diagnoses. The score performed better in detecting complicated appendicitis (ROC area 0.89 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88–0.90) versus 0.83 (CI 0.82–0.84) for any appendicitis, p < 0.001), in patients below age 15 years and in patients with >47 h duration of symptoms (ROC area 0.93, CI 0.90–0.95 for complicated and 0.87, CI 0.84–0.90 for any appendicitis in both categories). Complicated appendicitis is unlikely at AIR score <4 points (Negative Predictive Value 99%, CI 98–100%). Appendicitis is likely at AIR score >8 points, especially in young patients (positive predictive value (PPV) 96%, CI 90–100%) and men (PPV 89%, CI 84–93%). The AIR score has high sensitivity for complicated appendicitis and identifies subgroups with low probability of complicated appendicitis or high probability of appendicitis. The discriminating capacity is high in children and patients with long duration of symptoms. It performs equally well in both sexes. This verifies the AIR score as a valid decision support. Trial registration number https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00971438

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.

Background Biliary complications during pregnancy is an important issue. The aim of this study was to examine if there is an increased risk to perform cholecystectomy during pregnancy in patients with previous bariatric surgery in comparison to other females subjected to cholecystectomy. Methods The Nationwide Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery (GallRiks) and the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry (SOReg) were combined. Female patients 18–45 years old were included. The study group was patients with a history of bariatric surgery whom were pregnant at the time of cholecystectomy. This group was compared with pregnant patients without previous bariatric surgery and non-pregnant with and without previous bariatric surgery. Results In total, 21,314 patients were included and 292 underwent surgery during pregnancy. From 1282 patients identified in both registers, 16 patients were pregnant at the time of cholecystectomy. Acute cholecystectomy was performed in 5922 (28%) non-pregnant and 199 (68%) pregnant ( p < 0.001), including 11/16 (69%) pregnant with previous bariatric surgery. When comparing all pregnant patients, those with previous bariatric surgery had longer operative time ( p = 0.031) and length of stay ( p = 0.043), but no differences were seen when only comparing patients with an acute indication for surgery. There was no difference in complications comparing pregnant patients with previous bariatric surgery with non-pregnant, both with and without previous bariatric surgery. Conclusions Cholecystectomy during pregnancy in patients with previous bariatric surgery seems to be safe. The increased risk seen in the non-pregnant group after previous bariatric surgery is not seen in pregnancy, possibly due to an optimization of the circumstances at surgery.