On March 7 and 8, 2020, revolts erupted in numerous Italian prisons after the announcement of regulations to contain the spread of COVID-19 in prisons. On April 2, 2020, the first prisoner died of COVID-19, and as of April 9, 58 prisoners and 178 penitentiary police officers have tested positive for the virus. The situation in Italy is made all the more dramatic because of endemic overcrowding: As of April 3, 2020, there were 56,830 prisoners in institutions meant for a maximum of 47,000 people, that is, an occupancy level of 121.75%. The Ministry of Justice and that of Health have established two strategies to limit the spread of COVID-19 in prisons: progressive isolation from the external world and adoption of practices to identify possible cases and to treat infected subjects. The legislation has significantly reduced individual rights in order to protect public health, but in the prison context, the limitations imposed do not guarantee the achievement of the goal of the entire legislation, which is to interrupt the chain of transmission of contagion. A prison cannot be entirely cut off, because its operations depend on people who come and go daily, The effects of these strategy are discussed critically.

The Italian Ministry of Justice and that of Health have established two strategies to limit the spread of COVID-19 in prisons: progressive isolation from the external world and adoption of practices to identify possible cases and to treat infected subjects. After the announcement of regulations revolts erupted in numerous Italian prisons. The motivations and effects of these strategy are discussed critically into the search for a balance between the right to health and other rights of prisoners in Italian prisons with the problem of an occupancy level of 121.75%.

AbstractIn Italy, both parents have parental responsibility; as a general principle they have the power to give or withhold consent to medical procedures on their children, including consent for blood transfusion; however these rights are not absolute and exist only to promote the welfare of children.MethodsThe Authors discuss ethical and legal framework for Jehovah’s Witness parents’ refusal of blood transfusion in Italy. They searched national judgments concerning Jehovah’s Witness parents’ refusal of blood transfusion – and related comments – in national legal databases and national legal journals, and literature on medical literature databases.ResultsIn the case of Jehovah’s Witness parents’ refusal of blood transfusion for their child, Italian Courts adopt measures that prevents the parents from exercise their parental responsibility not in the child’s best interest.DiscussionIn the event that refusal by the parents, outside of emergency situations, exposes the child’s health to serious risk, health workers must proceed by notifying the competent authority, according also to the Italian Code of Medical Ethics.ConclusionWhen the patient is a minor, the child’s best interest always come first.

Ageing of the global population represents a challenge for national healthcare systems and healthcare professionals, including medico-legal experts, who assess personal damage in an increasing number of older people. Personal damage evaluation in older people is complex, and the scarcity of evidence is hindering the development of formal guidelines on the subject. The main objectives of the first multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Medico-Legal Assessment of Personal Damage in Older People were to increase knowledge on the subject and establish standard procedures in this field. The conference, organized according to the guidelines issued by the Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), was held in Bologna (Italy) on June 8, 2019 with the support of national scientific societies, professional organizations, and stakeholders. The Scientific Technical Committee prepared 16 questions on 4 thematic areas: (1) differences in injury outcomes in older people compared to younger people and their relevance in personal damage assessment; (2) pre-existing status reconstruction and evaluation; (3) medico-legal examination procedures; (4) multidimensional assessment and scales. The Scientific Secretariat reviewed relevant literature and documents, rated their quality, and summarized evidence. During conference plenary public sessions, 4 pairs of experts reported on each thematic area. After the last session, a multidisciplinary Jury Panel (15 members) drafted the consensus statements. The present report describes Conference methods and results, including a summary of evidence supporting each statement, and areas requiring further investigation. The methodological recommendations issued during the Conference may be useful in several contexts of damage assessment, or to other medico-legal evaluation fields.

Objective This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of chronic groin pain (primary outcome) and alterations of sensitivity (secondary outcome) after Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair, comparing neurectomy with ilioinguinal nerve preservation surgery. Summary background data The exact cause of chronic groin postoperative pain after mesh inguinal hernia repair is usually unclear. Section of the ilioinguinal nerve (neurectomy) may reduce postoperative chronic pain. Methods We followed PRISMA guidelines to identify randomized studies reporting comparative outcomes of neurectomy versus ilioinguinal nerve preservation surgery during Lichtenstein hernia repairs. Studies were identified by searching in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from April 2020. The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis was submitted and accepted from PROSPERO: CRD420201610. Results In this systematic review and meta-analysis, 16 RCTs were included and 1550 patients were evaluated: 756 patients underwent neurectomy (neurectomy group) vs 794 patients underwent ilioinguinal nerve preservation surgery (nerve preservation group). All included studies analyzed Lichtenstein hernia repair. The majority of the new studies and data comes from a relatively narrow geographic region; other bias of this meta-analysis is the suitability of pooling data for many of these studies. A statistically significant percentage of patients with prosthetic inguinal hernia repair had reduced groin pain at 6 months after surgery at 8.94% (38/425) in the neurectomy group versus 25.11% (113/450) in the nerve preservation group [relative risk (RR) 0.39, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28–0.54; Z = 5.60 (P < 0.00001)]. Neurectomy did not significantly increase the groin paresthesia 6 months after surgery at 8.5% (30/353) in the neurectomy group versus 4.5% (17/373) in the nerve preservation group [RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.94–2.80; Z = 1.74 (P = 0.08)]. At 12 months after surgery, there is no advantage of neurectomy over chronic groin pain; no significant differences were found in the 12-month postoperative groin pain rate at 9% (9/100) in the neurectomy group versus 17.85% (20/112) in the inguinal nerve preservation group [RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24–1.05; Z = 1.83 (P = 0.07)]. One study (115 patients) reported data about paresthesia at 12 months after surgery (7.27%, 4/55 in neurectomy group vs. 5%, 3/60 in nerve preservation group) and results were not significantly different between the two groups [RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.34, 6.21;Z = 0.51 (P = 0.61)]. The subgroup analysis of the studies that identified the IIN showed a significant reduction of the 6th month evaluation of pain in both groups and confirmed the same trend in favor of neurectomy reported in the previous overall analysis: statistically significant reduction of pain 6 months after surgery at 3.79% (6/158) in the neurectomy group versus 14.6% (26/178) in the nerve preservation group [RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.13–0.63; Z = 3.10 (P = 0.002)]. Conclusion Ilioinguinal nerve identification in Lichtenstein inguinal hernia repair is the fundamental step to reduce or avoid postoperative pain. Prophylactic ilioinguinal nerve neurectomy seems to offer some advantages concerning pain in the first 6th month postoperative period, although it might be possible that the small number of cases contributed to the insignificancy regarding paresthesia and hypoesthesia. Nowadays, prudent surgeons should discuss with patients and their families the uncertain benefits and the potential risks of neurectomy before performing the hernioplasty.