Aim To evaluate the effect of delayed surgery after a period of observation in patients with doubtful diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the form of improvement in negative appendectomy rates and the incidence of complications. Materials and methodsOne hundred twelve patients operated with the diagnosis of acute appendicitis between May 2008 to June 2009 were included in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups based on timing of surgery after admission. These two groups were studied in respect to age, sex, Alvarado score at presentation, ultrasound findings, operative findings, histopathology and postoperative complications. Proportions of negative appendectomies, and complicated appendicitis were analysed statistically.Results Group wise age and sex distribution was comparable. The mean Alvarado score in the group 1 was 7.9 (range, 6-10) where as in those operated later than 12 hours (group 2), it was 4.5 (range, 3-8). Normal appendectomies were significantly (p < 0.05) less in group 2 (1 out of 40) as compared to group 1 (4 out of 72). The number of complicated appendicitis were higher in group 1 (14/72) as compared to group 2 (4/40) but not significantly (p > 0.06). The number of postoperative complications was also high in group 1 (11 vs 2 in group 2). ConclusionIt is better to wait in cases with doubtful initial diagnosis of appendicitis on admission in order to decrease negative appendectomy rates. These patients need to be continuously monitored clinically to prevent complications.

Background: Unanticipated cancellation of scheduled elective operations decreases theatre efficiency and is inconvenient to the patients, their families and the medical teams. It creates logistic and financial burden associated with extended hospital stay and repetitions of pre-operative preparations. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence and causes of cancellation of surgical operations in our centre and make recommendations to reduce it.Methods: This was a prospective cross-sectional study carried out over a period of one year in Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara from July 12017 to June 2018. Consecutive sampling method was used. All patients booked for elective surgical procedures were enrolled in the study. The age, gender, diagnosis, proposed surgery and reasons for cancellation were documented and analysed.Results: A total of 794 patients were scheduled for elective surgical operations during the study period and 86 (10.83%) patients’ operations were cancelled. There were 54(62.79%) males and 32 (37.20%) females. Recent change in the medical status of the patient (n=18; 20.9%) was the main reason for cancellation of operation followed by overbooking (n=11; 12.7%), change in plan of management (n=9,10.4%).Conclusions: Avoidable factors are mainly responsible for cancellation of surgeries. Efficient management, pre-operative assessment, utilization of the few available hospital resources, improvement in communication between medical teams and patients would reduce the rate of cancellation of booked surgical procedures.Keywords: Cancellation; efficient management; elective operation.

Background: Arteriovenous fistula (AVF) is the primary mode of achieving vascular access for hemodialysis in chronic renal failure (CRF). Because of high complication rates like thrombosis, maintenance of the fistula is a major challenge. Although antiplatelets and anticoagulants are emerging rapidly for improving the outcome of AVF but fear of bleeding, hematoma, subsequent compression of AV fistula and blockade restrict their use in many dialysis centers. Methods: Seventy five patients for whom AVF was created for hemodialysis access from Feb 2005-April 2009 in Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal were included in a retrospective study. Analysis of results was done in two different age and sex matched groups; Group I had patients where no anticoagulants or antiplatelets were used and Group II had patients in which antiplatelets/anticoagulants were used. Results: There were 27 patients in group I and 48 patients in group II. Both the groups were followed up till 2 years post operatively to check for the patency of the fistula. AV fistula was repeated in 16 cases altogether. In group II there were 5 (10%) cases of repeat fistula while in group I it was repeated in 11 (40%) cases. Conclusion: Judicious use of antiplatelet/anticoagulant agents in cases of AVF for hemodialysis access can be beneficial in preventing the chances of occlusion of AVF and thus helps in its long term patency. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/njms.v1i2.6607 Nepal Journal of Medical Sciences. 2012;1(2): 93-6

Background Patients presenting with suspected appendicitis pose a diagnostic challenge. Various scoring systems have been designed to aid in the clinical assessment of these patients. Widely applied was Alvarado score and best performed in validating studies, but was observed with few drawbacks. Appendicitis inflammatory response (AIR) score was designed to overcome the drawbacks associated with the implementation of Alvarado scoring system. Objective The main objective of this study was to evaluate the Appendicitis inflammatory Response Score and compare its performance in predicting risk of appendicitis with the Alvarado score. Method Appendicitis inflammatory response score and Alvarado scores were calculated prospectively on patients suspected of acute appendicitis presenting to Manipal Teaching Hospital, Pokhara, Nepal between July 2017 and June 2019. Diagnostic performance of the two scores was compared. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS 21 and p value < 0.05 was considered significant. Result The study included 217 patients with 109 (50.2%) males and 108 (49.8%) females. The mean age of patients was 25.77±15.54. The results analyzed showed better sensitivity of Appendicitis Inflammatory Response score (96.91%) as compared to 94.30% of Alvarado score. The positive and negative predictive values of Alvarado score were 74.87% and 50%, as compared to 79.70% and 72.20% for AIR score. Furthermore, the area under receiver operating curve of the appendix inflammatory response score was better (0.701) than that of Alvarado score (0.580). Conclusion Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) scoring performed well and more accurate than Alvarado scoring system with high specificity and high negative predictive value preventing negative appendectomies.