Anticoagulant therapy was effective to obtain recanalization of acute SVT in 45.4% of patients and preserved patients from recurrent thrombosis when given lifelong.

Our results suggest that this technique, which combines the advantages of both the open and the laparoscopic procedures, is a valid alternative for the treatment of acute appendicitis. However, this procedure cannot always be completed using only one trocar, as happened in 10 cases in our series.

Objective:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of NOM (non-operative management) in the treatment of blunt liver trauma, following a standardized treatment protocol. Methods:All the hemodynamically stable patients with computed tomography (CT) diagnosis of blunt liver trauma underwent NOM. It included strict clinical and laboratory observation, 48-72h contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) or CT follow-up, a primary angioembolization in case of admission CT evidence of vascular injuries and a secondary angioembolization in presence of vascular injuries signs at follow-up CEUS. Results:181 patients (85.4%) [55 (30.4%) women and 126 (69.6%) men, median age 39 (range 14–71)] were included. Of these, 63 patients (34.8%) had grade I, 48 patients (26.5%) grade II, 39 patients (21.5%) grade III, 21 patients (11.6%) grade IV and 10 patients (5.5%) grade V liver injuries. The overall success rate of NOM was 96.7% (175/181). There was not significant difference in the success rate between the patients with different liver injuries grade. Morbidity rate was 7.4% (13/175). Major complications (2 bilomas, 1 liver hematoma and 2 liver abscesses) were successfully treated by CEUS or CT guided drainage. Eighteen (18/181) patients (9.9%) underwent angioembolization with successful results. Conclusion: Non-operative management of blunt liver trauma represents a safe and effective treatment for both minor and severe injuries, achieving an high success rate and an acceptable morbidity rate. The angiographic study with embolization, although required only in selected cases of vascular injuries, represents a fundamental therapeutic option in a significant percentage of patients.

BackgroundThe aim of the study is to translate and cross-culturally adapt, for use in the Italian context, the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) developed by Makoul and colleagues.MethodsThe study was performed in the out-patient clinic of the Surgical Department of Cardarelli Hospital in Naples, Italy. It involved a systematic, standardized, multi-step process adhering to internationally accepted and recommended guidelines. Corrections and adjustments to the translation addressed both linguistic factors and cultural components.ResultsThe CAT was translated into Italian by two independent Italian mother-tongue translators. The consensus version was then back-translated by an English mother-tongue translator. This translation process was followed by a consensus meeting between the authors of translation and investigators, and then by two comprehension tests on a total of 65 patients.ConclusionsResults of the translation and cross-cultural adaptation were satisfactory and indicate that the Italian translation of the CAT can be used with confidence in the Italian context.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1411-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background The spread of the SARS-CoV2 virus, which causes COVID-19 disease, profoundly impacted the surgical community. Recommendations have been published to manage patients needing surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey, under the aegis of the Italian Society of Endoscopic Surgery, aims to analyze how Italian surgeons have changed their practice during the pandemic. Methods The authors designed an online survey that was circulated for completion to the Italian departments of general surgery registered in the Italian Ministry of Health database in December 2020. Questions were divided into three sections: hospital organization, screening policies, and safety profile of the surgical operation. The investigation periods were divided into the Italian pandemic phases I (March–May 2020), II (June–September 2020), and III (October–December 2020). Results Of 447 invited departments, 226 answered the survey. Most hospitals were treating both COVID-19-positive and -negative patients. The reduction in effective beds dedicated to surgical activity was significant, affecting 59% of the responding units. 12.4% of the respondents in phase I, 2.6% in phase II, and 7.7% in phase III reported that their surgical unit had been closed. 51.4%, 23.5%, and 47.8% of the respondents had at least one colleague reassigned to non-surgical COVID-19 activities during the three phases. There has been a reduction in elective (> 200 procedures: 2.1%, 20.6% and 9.9% in the three phases, respectively) and emergency (< 20 procedures: 43.3%, 27.1%, 36.5% in the three phases, respectively) surgical activity. The use of laparoscopy also had a setback in phase I (25.8% performed less than 20% of elective procedures through laparoscopy). 60.6% of the respondents used a smoke evacuation device during laparoscopy in phase I, 61.6% in phase II, and 64.2% in phase III. Almost all responders (82.8% vs. 93.2% vs. 92.7%) in each analyzed period did not modify or reduce the use of high-energy devices. Conclusion This survey offers three faithful snapshots of how the surgical community has reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic during its three phases. The significant reduction in surgical activity indicates that better health policies and more evidence-based guidelines are needed to make up for lost time and surgery not performed during the pandemic.