Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.
Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-016-5245-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background
The postoperative inflammatory response contributes to tissue healing and recovery but overwhelming inflammation is associated with postoperative complications. n–3 (ω-3) PUFAs modulate inflammatory responses and may help to prevent a proinflammatory cascade.
Objectives
We aimed to investigate the effects of perioperative intravenous n–3 PUFAs on inflammatory cytokines in colon cancer surgery.
Methods
This study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Forty-four patients undergoing elective colon resection for nonmetastasized cancer were randomly assigned to 2 intravenous n–3 PUFA or saline control infusions the night before and the morning after surgery. Blood was sampled at 6 perioperative time points for changes in cytokines in serum and in LPS-stimulated whole blood samples and leukocyte membrane fatty acid profiles.
Results
Twenty-three patients received saline and 21 patients received n–3 PUFAs. Patient and operation characteristics were equal between groups, except for open resection (saline n = 5 compared with n–3 PUFA n = 0, P = 0.056). Ex-vivo IL-6 after LPS stimulation was significantly higher in the n–3 PUFA group at the first day after surgery (P = 0.014), but not different at the second day after surgery (P = 0.467). White blood cell count was higher in the n–3 PUFA group at the fourth day after surgery (P = 0.029). There were more patients with infectious complications in the n–3 PUFA group (8 compared with 3, P = 0.036). There were no overall differences in serum IL-6, IL-10, C-reactive protein, and length of stay. The administration of n–3 PUFAs resulted in rapid increases in leukocyte membrane n–3 PUFA content.
Conclusions
In the n–3 PUFA group a clear relation with serum and LPS-stimulated cytokines was not found but, unexpectedly, more infectious complications occurred. Caution is thus required with the off-label use of a perioperative intravenous n–3 PUFA emulsion as a standalone infusion in the time sequence reported in the present study in colon resections with primary anastomosis. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02231203.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.