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.

No abstract

Background:Diagnosing an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture based on a physical examination remains a challenge for both surgeons and physical therapists. The lever sign test was developed to overcome the practical limitations of other tests and to optimize diagnosis. An evaluation of the measurement properties of the lever sign test is needed to make adequate interpretations in practice.Purpose:To evaluate the reliability and diagnostic value of the lever sign test.Study Design:Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A total of 94 patients were recruited between November 2014 and July 2016. Patients were included if they were at least 16 years old, suffered from knee trauma, and had indications for knee arthroscopic surgery. Lever sign, anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot-shift test outcomes were examined by an orthopaedic/trauma surgeon and a physical therapist. A test-retest design was used to investigate interrater reliability. Moreover, the lever sign test outcomes, alone and in combination with the other diagnostic tests, were compared with arthroscopic results, which served as the gold standard for the test’s diagnostic value.Results:The lever sign test and pivot-shift test had kappa values exceeding 0.80 for interrater reliability. The kappa values for the anterior drawer test and Lachman test were 0.80 and 0.77, respectively. The lever sign test showed the highest specificity (100%) and the lowest sensitivity (39%) when compared with the other 3 tests. Moreover, its positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 65%, respectively, while an accuracy of 71% was calculated. Clustering the lever sign test parallel with the other 3 tests resulted in the highest accuracy of 91%.Conclusion:The lever sign test appears to have high interrater reliability and is the most specific test, showing a maximal positive predictive value. A positive lever sign test result indicates an ACL rupture. These results support the added value of the lever sign test for diagnosing ACL ruptures.

BackgroundEarly diagnosis and treatment of complications after major abdominal surgery can decrease associated morbidity and mortality. Postoperative CRP levels have shown a strong correlation with complications. Aim of this systematic review and pooled-analysis was to assess postoperative values of CRP as a marker for major complications and construct a prediction model.Study designA systematic review was performed for CRP levels as a predictor for complications after major abdominal surgery (MAS). Raw data was obtained from seven studies, including 1427 patients. A logit regression model assessed the probability of major complications as a function of CRP levels on the third postoperative day. Two practical cut-offs are proposed: an optimal cut-off for safe discharge in a fast track protocol and another for early identification of patients with increased risk for major complications.ResultsA prediction model was calculated for major complications as a function of CRP levels on the third postoperative day. Based on the model several cut-offs for CRP are proposed. For instance, a two cut-off system may be applied, consisting of a safe discharge criterion with CRP levels below 75 mg/L, with a negative predictive value of 97.2%. A second cut-off is set at 215 mg/L (probability 20%) and serves as a predictor of complications, indicating additional CT-scan imaging.ConclusionsThe present study provides insight in the interpretation of CRP levels after major abdominal surgery, proposing a prediction model for major complications as a function of CRP on postoperative day 3. Cut-offs for CRP may be implemented for safe early-discharge in a fast-track protocol and, secondly as a threshold for additional examinations, such as CT-scan imaging, even in absence of clinical signs, to confirm or exclude major complications. The prediction model allows for setting a cut-off at the discretion of individual surgeons or surgical departments.

BackgroundIn the Netherlands prehospital trauma care is provided by emergency medical services (EMS) nurses. This care is extended by Physician staffed Helicopter Emergency Medical Services (P-HEMS) for the more severely injured patient. Prehospital communication is a factor of influence on the identification of these patients and the dispatch of P-HEMS. Though prehospital communication it is often perceived to be incomplete and unstructured. To elucidated factors of influence on prehospital triage and the identification of the severely injured patient a Delphi study was performed.MethodsA three round modified Delphi study was designed to explore concepts amongst experts in prehospital trauma care. P-HEMS physicians/nurses, trauma surgeons, EMS nurses and dispatch center operators where asked to state their opinion regarding identification of the poly trauma patient, trauma patient characteristics, prehospital communication and prehospital handover.ResultsSeventy-one panellist completed all three rounds. For the first round seven cases and 13 theses were presented. From the answers/argumentation the second round was build, in which 68 theses had to be ranked within four principle themes: factors that influence prehospital communication, critical information for proper handover, factors influencing collaboration and how training/education can influence this. Out of these answers the third survey was build, focussing on determining the exact content of a prehospital trauma handover. The majority of the panellists agreed to a set of parameters resulting in a new model of inter-professional hand over regarding prehospital trauma patients.DiscussionExact identification of the poly trauma patient in need of care by P-HEMS is difficult though prehospital communication and the prehospital handover may be improved.ConclusionThe respondents report that prehospital communication needs to be unambiguous to improve trauma care. Consensus was reached on a set of ten parameters that should minimally be handed over with regard to a prehospital trauma patient. This to facilitate prehospital communication between the Dispatch centre, EMS, P-HEMS and the receiving hospital.