Introduction and importance Gallstone ileus is an uncommon complication of cholelithiasis. It is usually presented as a small bowel obstruction. Elderly patients are commonly affected. The diagnosis is challenging, since needs a high index of suspicion and imagenology is key. Surgery is the mainstay management, most commonly performed by laparotomy, but laparoscopy is summing cases. Nevertheless the approach is still controversial. We report a gallstone ileus case, that was managed totally laparoscopic in our medium complex public institution. Case presentation An 71 years-old male patient, with symptomatic cholelithiasis, consulted in emergency department with symptoms and signs of small bowel obstruction. Computed tomography of abdomen and pelvis showed the classical Rigler's triad. Totally laparoscopic enterolithotomy alone was performed successfully. Postoperative evolution was without incidents, being discharge at fifth day. Clinical discussion Gallstone ileus represents around 0,3–0,5% of cholelithiasis complications. Mostly affect elderly women patients, with comorbidities. Mortality and morbidity is still high nowadays. The classical management of gallstone ileus is the open surgery, but the laparoscopic approach has been described and it can be done. Conclusion The laparoscopic management of gallstone ileus is effective and secure procedure and seems reasonable to attempt if the conditions and skills are available.

Background: Recent reviews conclude that aphasia intervention is effective. However, replication and implementation require detailed reporting of intervention is and a specification of participant profiles. To date, reviews concentrate more on efficacy than on intervention reporting quality. Aims: The aim of this project is to review the descriptions of aphasia interventions and participants appearing in recent systematic reviews of aphasia intervention effectiveness. The relationship between the quality of these descriptions and the robustness of research design is explored, and the replicability of aphasia interventions is evaluated. Methods and Procedures: The scope of our search was an analysis of the aphasia intervention studies included in the Brady et al. 2016 and EBRSR 2018 systematic reviews, and in the RCSLT 2014 literature synthesis. Intervention descriptions published separately from the intervention study (i.e.published online, in clinical tools, or a separate trial protocols) were not included. The criteria for inclusion were that participants had aphasia, the intervention involved language and/or communication, and included the following research designs: Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT), comparison or control, crossover design, case series. Exclusion criteria included non-SLT interventions, studies involving fewer than four participants, conference abstracts, studies not available in English. Studies were evaluated for completeness of intervention description using the TIDieR Checklist. Additionally, we rated the quality of patient and intervention description, with particular reference to replicability.Outcomes and Results: Ninety-three studies were included. Only 14 studies (15%) had >50 participants. Fifty-six studies (60%) did not select participants with a specific aphasia profile, and a further 10 studies only described participants as non-fluent. Across the studies, an average of eight (of 12) TIDieR checklist items were given but information on where, tailoring, modification and fidelity items was rarely available. Studies that evaluated general aphasia intervention approaches 3 tended to use RCT designs, whereas more specific intervention studies were more likely to use case series designs.Conclusions: Group studies were generally under-powered and there was a paucity of research looking at specific aphasia interventions for specific aphasia profiles. There was a trade-off between the robustness of the design and the level of specificity of the intervention described. While the TIDieR framework is a useful guide to information which should be included in an intervention study, it is insufficiently sensitive for assessing replicability. We consider possible solutions to the challenges of making large-scale trials more useful for determining effective aphasia intervention.

HighlightsVenous thromboembolism is a low incidence disease, but it is the first cause of death in bariatric surgery patients.The use of thrombolysis in patients not presenting with a massive pulmonary embolism should be decided case by case.More cases are needed in literature to define the optimal treatment.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn disease (CD), has emerged as a global disease with an increasing incidence in developing and newly industrialized regions such as South America. This global rise offers the opportunity to explore the differences and similarities in disease presentation and outcomes across different genetic backgrounds and geographic locations. Our study includes 265 IBD patients. We performed an exploratory analysis of the databases of Chilean and North American IBD patients to compare the clinical phenotypes between the cohorts. We employed an unsupervised machine-learning approach using principal component analysis, uniform manifold approximation, and projection, among others, for each disease. Finally, we predicted the cohort (North American vs Chilean) using a random forest. Several unsupervised machine learning methods have separated the 2 main groups, supporting the differences between North American and Chilean patients with each disease. The variables that explained the loadings of the clinical metadata on the principal components were related to the therapies and disease extension/location at diagnosis. Our random forest models were trained for cohort classification based on clinical characteristics, obtaining high accuracy (0.86 = UC; 0.79 = CD). Similarly, variables related to therapy and disease extension/location had a high Gini index. Similarly, univariate analysis showed a later CD age at diagnosis in Chilean IBD patients (37 vs 24; P = .005). Our study suggests a clinical difference between North American and Chilean IBD patients: later CD age at diagnosis with a predominantly less aggressive phenotype (39% vs 54% B1) and more limited disease, despite fewer biological therapies being used in Chile for both diseases.