BackgroundThe aim of our prospective study is to compare and analyze the results of two treatment methods of appendiceal mass and abscess: emergency surgery and conservative treatment with and without interval surgery.Materials and methods74 Patients with the diagnosis of appendiceal mass or abscess were enrolled in this study. The patients were assigned into two groups: the emergency surgery group and the conservative management group. The conservative management group was subdivided into two groups: interval surgery group and the ambulatory follow-up observation group without interval surgery. Several clinical characteristics were determined and compared between the groups. Among patients who underwent surgery, the surgical methods, operation time, postoperative hospitalization period, and post-surgical complications were analyzed. In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis was assessed.ResultsComparison of the emergency surgery group and interval surgery group revealed that the interval surgery group was characterized by shorter operation time (P = 0.008), a smallernumber of postoperative complications (P = 0.02) and also shorter postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.009). In the ambulatory follow-up observation group, recurrence of appendicitis developed in 3 (13%) patients. US or CT-guided PCD was performed in all 3 patients on the conservative treatment stage. Comparing the interval surgery and recurrent appendicitis groups revealed statistically significant difference: operation time (P = 0.04) as well as postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.04) were shorter in recurrent appendicitis group. In 3 (4.1%) patients, the cause of the appendiceal mass was caecal cancer (2 cases) and Crohn's disease.ConclusionConservative treatment without interval surgery seems to be the preferred method for treatment of appendiceal mass and abscess. Patients can be operated on only in case of recurrence of appendicitis. US or CT PCD of appendiceal abscess presents the risk-factor for the development of recurrence of appendicitis. CT and colonoscopy within 4–6 weeks after completing the conservative treatment is recommended to be performed in all patients.

Our research shows no significant difference in frequency of hernia recurrence between retromuscular mesh repair and onlay technique for treatment of incisional hernia. The usage of the retromuscular mesh repair is associated with significantly less wound complications than onlay technique. That can be considered as an advantage of retromuscular method, which makes it more preferential than onlay method.

Our research shows no significant difference in wound complications, hernia recurrence and chronic pain after Lichtenstein hernioplasty, by using of LW and HW meshes. The usage of the LW mesh was associated with less feeling of foreign body than that of the HW mesh, what can be considered as prevalence of LW mesh hernioplasty.

We applied the laser induced fluorescence spectroscopy (LIFS) to investigate intestinal and liver tissues of normal male Wistar rats fed with vitamin A. The special procedure based on intensity spectral functions fitting was developed for the recognition of vitamin A in different tissues. Based on this procedure it is demonstrated that the LIFS can be used to monitor vitamin A deposition and distribution in the body of rat, which is essential for understanding the mechanism of formation of the vitamin A rich droplets, as the mechanism of vitamin A mobilization.

The aim of our study is to compare the results of emergency surgery versus conservative treatment with interval surgery in patients diagnosed with appendiceal mass and abscess. A retrospective review of 48 patients with appendiceal mass and abscess treated from January 2002 to January 2013 at General Surgery Department of Kipshidze Central University Hospital was performed. Patients with emergency surgery were compared to patients treated by nonoperative management with interval surgery. Demographics, clinical profile, and operative outcomes were studied. The emergency surgery group included 25 patients, and the interval surgery group included 23 patients. The clinical characteristics of the emergency surgery and interval surgery groups were not statistically different. In the emergency surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 17 patients, and colonic resections (ileocecectomy or right hemicolectomy) were performed on 8 patients. In the interval surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 21 patients, and colonic resections were performed on 2 patients. There were no statistical differences in types of surgery, postoperative complications, operation time without colonic resections, and postoperative hospitalization period among these 2 groups. Operation time with colonic resections was of greater duration in the emergency surgery group than in the interval surgery group (P ¼ 0.04). Both treatment methods for appendiceal mass and abscess have the same results. The surgeon must consider clinical symptoms and results of investigations in each particular case when choosing an appropriate treatment method. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required for comparing the results of all 3 treatment methods of appendiceal mass.