Background Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) is an infectious respiratory disease caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Respiratory symptoms and flu-like presentation are the most defined clinical manifestations. However, gastrointestinal symptoms with acute abdomen have been reported in a small percentage, occasionally mimicking acute appendicitis. Hence, the diagnosis of COVID-19 should be suspected and investigated in every case of acute abdomen in the present situation. Case presentation We report a case of a 25-year-old male who presented with features of acute appendicitis. Despite the equivocal ultrasound results, he was scheduled for an emergency appendectomy for Alvarado's score 7 out of 10, who underwent a successful appendectomy. The patient had initially tested negative on an upper respiratory COVID-19 reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) with normal chest X-ray but few hours after the surgery patient developed a high-grade fever. An RT-PCR for COVID-19 was resent following a suspicion that came out to be positive. Clinical discussion Several case reports have suggested a probable association between COVID-19 and appendicitis. This case shows the limited effectiveness of clinical diagnosis for the surgical abdomen in COVID-19 patients as these two conditions share similar symptoms often needing a clinical vigilance. Conclusion This case reports acute appendicitis in a patient who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 subsequently following emergency appendectomy highlighting the acute gastrointestinal presentation of COVID-19. This case exemplifies the necessity to be familiar with the gastrointestinal symptoms of COVID-19 and maintain a high level of suspicion for COVID-19 infection in cases of abdominal pain.

Introduction: Acute appendicitis is one of the most common acute surgical abdominal conditions requiring surgery. Ever since the inflamed appendix was demonstrated in the 1980’s by Ultrasonography, it has been used as an aid to clinically diagnose acute appendicitis. Tzanakis scoring system is a combination of clinical examination, Ultrasonography and inflammatory markers. Methods: A retrospective non-randomized observational study was conducted from April 2014 to March 2015 on all cases of acute appendicitis, which underwent preoperative ultrasound before appendectomy (open/laparoscopic) at the Department of surgery, Nepal Medical College Teaching Hospital. Ultrasound findings and Tzanaki score were compared in the cases. No studies could be found in literature comparing ultrasound diagnosis with Tzanaki score in appendicitis. Results: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 73%, 50%, 95% and 12% respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Tzanaki were 87%, 50%, 96% and 23% respectively. Tzanaki score is better than ultrasound alone as a diagnostic test for acute appendicitis. Conclusion: Tzanaki score is better than ultrasound in diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

The rectal foreign body is a rare presentation, often related to sexual gratification, sexual assault, or the result of ingestion and rarely accidental, and with rising incidence. We present a case of a 47-year-old heterosexual male with an alleged history of accidental insertion of a foreign body through the anus three days prior without peritonitis or obstipation. After investigations, the patient underwent a failed sigmoidoscopic removal followed by exploratory laparotomy, foreign body removal, and an uneventful post-operative period. It should be noted that early diagnosis and timely intervention are important to prevent complications in rectal foreign bodies. Assessment of the shape, size, nature, and location of the object through appropriate imaging is necessary. Exploratory laparotomy is inevitable in cases of failed manual extraction techniques and complicated cases.

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is one of the most common surgery performed and is traditionally performed using four ports. With the aim of improving patient’s comfort, port numbers have been reduced to single port. But feasibility and the extra expense that comes with single and double port LC has made them less attractive. Three port LC can be a safe alternative to four port LC, and various research has shown its safety. This study compares the three port LC with the traditional four port LC with the objective of assessing feasibility and benefit of the decreased port number. We evaluated 217 patients who were randomly allocated for three port and four port LC. Both the groups were compared for operative time, assessment of postoperative pain, days of hospital stay and postoperative recovery time after discharge. The parameters were compared using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16. Among 217 patients, 123 underwent three port LC and 94 underwent four port LC. The larger number were females (79.7%), and with comparable age group of patients. Rate of conversion to open cholecystectomy, postoperative pain scale, analgesic requirement, average hospital stay and port site infection rates were comparable in both groups of patients. The average time taken for operation was less in three port LC than the four port LC but this was not statistically significant. There is no significant difference between 3 port and 4 port LC in terms of time required for the surgery, conversion rate, complication and duration of hospital stay.

Desmoid tumors most commonly occur in the anterior abdominal wall in approximately 50% of cases and are locally aggressive. We describe a case of a 38-year-old lady who was investigated as a case of gastrointestinal tumor. Post-operative immunohistochemistry staining showed the presence of a synchronous desmoid in the abdominal wall and proximal ileum. Wide local excision remains the gold-standard of treatment with pharmacotherapeutics and radiotherapy serving as adjuvant or palliative treatment options.