No abstract

Background-Thoracentesis and antibiotics remain the cornerstones of treatment in stage I empyema. The management of disease progression or late presentation is controversial. Open thoracotomy and decortication is perceived to be synonymous with protracted recovery and prolonged hospitalisation. Advocates of thoracoscopic adhesiolysis cite earlier chest drain removal and hospital discharge. This paper challenges traditional prejudice towards open surgery. Methods-A five year audit of empyema cases referred to a regional cardiothoracic surgical unit analysing previous clinical course, surgical management, and outcome. Results-Between February 1992 and February 1997, the number of referrals to this centre increased dramatically. Twenty two children were referred for surgery (15 boys, seven girls; age range, 0.5-16 years). Before referral, patients had been unwell for 6-50 days (median, 15), had been treated with several antibiotics, and had undergone chest ultrasound (15 patients), computed tomography (five patients), pleural aspiration attempts (13 patients), and intercostal drainage (seven patients). The organism responsible was identified in only two cases (Streptococcus pneumoniae). Three patients had intraparenchymal abscess formation. Eighteen patients underwent open thoracotomy and decortication. Drain removal was performed on the first or second day. Fever resolved within 48 hours. Median hospital stay was four days. All patients had complete clinical and radiological resolution. Conclusions-Treatment must be tailored to the disease stage. In stage II and III diseases, open decortication followed by early drain removal results in rapid symptomatic recovery, early hospital discharge, and complete resolution. In the early fibrinopurulent phase, alternative strategies should be considered. However, even in ideal cases, neither fibrinolysis nor thoracoscopic adhesiolysis can achieve more rapid resolution at lower risk.

The pathogenesis of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is still not fully unraveled. Though preventive vaccines and treatment methods are out on the market, a specific cure for the disease has not been discovered. Recent investigations and research studies primarily focus on the immunopathology of the disease. A healthy immune system responds immediately after viral entry, causing immediate viral annihilation and recovery. However, an impaired immune system causes extensive systemic damage due to an unregulated immune response characterized by the hypersecretion of chemokines and cytokines. The elevated levels of cytokine or hypercytokinemia leads to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) along with multiple organ damage. Moreover, the immune response against SARS-CoV-2 has been linked with race, gender, and age; hence, this viral infection’s outcome differs among the patients. Many therapeutic strategies focusing on immunomodulation have been tested out to assuage the cytokine storm in patients with severe COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the diverse signaling pathways triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 virus is essential before contemplating relief measures. This present review explains the interrelationships of hyperinflammatory response or cytokine storm with organ damage and the disease severity. Furthermore, we have thrown light on the diverse mechanisms and risk factors that influence pathogenesis and the molecular pathways that lead to severe SARS-CoV-2 infection and multiple organ damage. Recognition of altered pathways of a dysregulated immune system can be a loophole to identify potential target markers. Identifying biomarkers in the dysregulated pathway can aid in better clinical management for patients with severe COVID-19 disease. A special focus has also been given to potent inhibitors of proinflammatory cytokines, immunomodulatory and immunotherapeutic options to ameliorate cytokine storm and inflammatory responses in patients affected with COVID-19.

No abstract

Currently the most powerful tool in combating the COVID‐19 pandemic is vaccination against SARS‐CoV‐2. A growing percentage of the world's population is being vaccinated. Various vaccines are worldwide on the market. Several adverse reactions have been reported as a part of post‐marketing surveillance of COVID‐19 vaccines. Among the possible adverse events, cutaneous vasculitis has occasionally been reported. We present a narrative review on cutaneous vasculitis related to COVID‐19‐vaccination to summarize clinical findings, histopathology, treatment and outcome. We searched for “COVID vaccine”, “COVID vaccination” AND “cutaneous vasculitis” in PUBMED. Articles in English have been selected, from inception to December 2021, and analyzed for patient's characteristics, type of vaccine, time of appearance of cutaneous vasculitis and clinico‐histopathologic type. Treatment and outcome have also been considered in this narrative review. Two new unpublished cases of ours were added. Cutaneous vasculitis is a rare adverse event to COVID‐19 vaccination. It has been observed with mRNA and adenovirus‐vector vaccines. IgA vasculitis, lymphocytic and ANCA‐associated vasculitis, leukocytoclastic and urticarial vasculitis have been reported. This adverse event can occur after first or second shot. Most cases run a mild to moderate course. Cornerstone of medical treatment are systemic corticosteroids. Complete remission could be achieved in most patients. Vasculitis may not be considered as a contraindication of vaccination, being uncommonly reported and shows a favorable prognosis. The benefit of the vaccination remains high especially for immunocompromised patients. COVID‐vaccine induced vasculitis is important in the differential diagnosis of purpuric and vasculitis disorders.

No abstract

Background Over the past few decades, the rate of Cesarean Section (CS) delivery has been rising rapidly and the prevalence of CS-associated complications including Abdominal Wall Endometriomas (AWE) increases with each additional operation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical characteristics, histopathological diagnostic role and surgical management of post-CS AWE through a retrospective case review. Methods We calculated the incidence of AWE and reviewed all the patients underwent surgical removal of Post-CS AWE during the period of 2012–2018 who were diagnosed, treated and followed up for 2–8 years at our tertiary hospital. Results Thirty women with AWE were included. The main symptom in 2/3 of cases was cyclic pain and 4 cases (13.3%) had no symptoms. The mean interval between prior CS and appearance of symptoms was 55.2 months and the mean size of the excised mass was 42 mm. Free surgical margin was less than 9 mm in 9 patients (30%) but no recurrence was recorded among all the studied patients. Pre-operative FNAC diagnosis was performed for only 3 patients (10%) which helped in excluding other potential pathologies. The clinical–pathological agreement value for detection of the nature of the abdominal wall mass was 93.4%. Conclusions Patients with suspected AWE should undergo preoperative cytological biopsy to exclude alternative diagnosis. Wide surgical excision with margin of less than 1 cm could be accepted especially in case of weak abdominal wall. More studies on the post-CS complications; risks, prevention, early detection and proper management should be encouraged.

Highlights Poroma affects gluteal skin. Trauma is a possible cause. We recommend excision and pathology.