Aim: Definition of the type of appendicitis is based on examination of the peritoneum and appendix. Gomes et al. proposed a laparoscopic grading system of acute appendicitis (grades 1 and 2, noncomplicated appendicitis, grade 3-5 complicated appendicitis). The aim of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility of this score. Patients and methods: All patients managed for acute appendicitis between January 2016 and June 2016 were included in this singlecenter prospective study. Laparoscopic appendectomy procedures were filmed by analogy to Sugerbaker's peritoneal carcinomatosis score (9 quadrants, all of the abdomen was filmed). The videos were then analyzed by seven staff surgeons blinded to each other and the operative report. The primary endpoint was to determine the concordance between staff surgeons for grading of appendicitis using the laparoscopic grading system of acute appendicitis described by Gomes et al. Results:A total of 40 patients were included in this study. A concordance was observed between the seven staff surgeons in 85% of cases. For regional peritonitis, the mean ± (SD) number of quadrants in which the staff surgeons reported signs of peritonitis was 1.44 ± 0.63. For diffuse peritonitis, the mean (SD) number of quadrants in which the staff surgeons reported signs of peritonitis was 2.59 ± 0.51. On ROC curve analysis, two quadrants was the best cut-off between grade 4B (local peritonitis) and five (diffuse peritonitis) acute appendicitis (AUC = 0.92, Se = 100%, Sp = 92%, p = 0.005). Conclusion:The classification used to determine the type of appendicitis is reproducible. Clinical significance: To give a definition of complicated appendicitis.

IOC-IG was feasible and safe. Our results suggest that this technique is more effective than IOC-CF for biliary tract identification after dissection and may constitute a powerful diagnostic test for the detection of extrahepatic ducts.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Predicted postoperative FEV1 (ppoFEV1) must be estimated preoperatively prior to surgery for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We evaluated a lung volumetry approach based on chest computed tomography (CT).Methods: A prospective study was conducted over a period of one year in eligible lung cancer patients to evaluate the difference between ppoFEV1 and the 3-month postoperative FEV1 (poFEV1). Patients in whom CT was performed in another hospital and those with factors influencing poFEV1, such as atelectasis, pleural effusion, pneumothorax, or pneumonia, were excluded. A total of 23 patients were included and ppoFEV1 was calculated according to 4 usual Methods: Nakahara formula, Juhl and Frost formula, ventilation scintigraphy, perfusion scintigraphy, and a fifth method based on quantitative CT. Lung volume was calculated twice and separately by 2 radiologists. Tumor volume, and emphysema defined by a −950 HU limit were subtracted from the total lung volume in order to estimate ppoFEV1. Results:We compared 5 methods of ppoFEV1 estimation and calculated the mean volume difference between ppoFEV1 and poFEV1. A better correlation was observed for quantitative CT than for Nakahara formula, Juhl and Frost formula, perfusion scintigraphy and ventilation scintigraphy with respectively: R²=0.79 vs. 0.75, 0.75, 0.67 and 0.64 with a mean volume difference of 266±229 mL (P<0.01) vs. 320±262 mL (P<0.01), 332±251 mL (P<0.01), 304±295 mL (P<0.01) and 312±303 mL (P<0.01).Conclusions: Quantitative CT appears to be a satisfactory method to evaluate ppoFEV1 evaluation method, and appears to be more reliable than other approaches. Estimation of ppoFEV1, as part of the preoperative assessment, does not involve additional morphologic examinations, particularly scintigraphy.This method may become the reference method for ppoFEV1 evaluation.