Purpose: To establish the efficacy of once-per-day intracavitary tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) in the treatment of pediatric intra-abdominal abscesses. Methods: A single-center prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial of the use of intracavitary tPA in abdominal abscesses in children. Patients were randomized to either tPA-treatment or saline-treatment groups. Primary outcome was drainage catheter dwell (hours). Secondary outcomes were length of hospital stay, times to discharge, clinical and sonographic resolution, and adverse events (AEs). Results: Twenty-eight children were randomized to either group (n = 14 each). Demographics between groups were not significantly different (age P = .28; weight P = .40; gender P = .44). There were significantly more abscesses in the tPA-treated group ( P = .03). Abscesses were secondary to perforated appendicitis (n = 25) or postappendectomy (n = 3). Thirty-four abscesses were drained, 4 aspirated, 3 neither drained/aspirated. There was no significant difference in number of drains ( P = .14), drain size ( P = .19), primary outcome ( P = .077), or secondary outcomes found. No procedural or intervention drug-related AEs occurred. No patient in the saline-treated group required to be switched/treated with tPA. Conclusion: No significant difference in the length of catheter dwell time, procedure time to discharge, or time to resolution was found. Intracavitary tPA was not associated with morbidity or mortality. The results neither support nor negate routine use of tPA in the drainage of intra-abdominal abscess in children. It is possible that a multicentre study with a larger number of patients may answer this question more definitively.

Ultrasound-guided vascular access procedures are increasingly performed, particularly in the hospital setting, by a variety of health care professionals. Adequate teaching of the skills required for these procedures is important for all clinicians conducting these procedures. We created an inter-disciplinary workshop to teach these skills to anyone interested at our institution. This was a half-day workshop that combined pre-workshop teaching materials with didactic lectures and simulation based learning, which was followed by deliberate practice. Enrollment was on a first come first serve basis. We retrospectively reviewed the enrollment and performance of this workshop at our institution over 18 months. The workshop proved equally attractive to trainees and staff. Participants spanned a variety of healthcare disciplines, with the most common being intensive care (27%) and diagnostic imaging (23%). Participants indicated high satisfaction with the workshop, with a mean score of 4.7 on a 5-point Likert scale given to measure overall satisfaction. A long-term impact survey indicated regular use of skills learned in the workshop and a perceived improvement in clinical practice. This study helps demonstrate the efficacy of this inter-professional workshop structure in helping multidisciplinary healthcare professionals acquire unique skillsets for everyday clinical practice.

No abstract

Background: In children with cancer, port-a-caths (ports) are commonly placed in the right anterior chest wall, leaving a visible scar when removed. The psychological impact of port scars on survivors is unknown. It is unclear whether alternative sites should be considered. We assessed the impact of port scars on pediatric cancer survivors to determine whether a change in location is indicated. Methods:We performed a cross-sectional single-center study of pediatric cancer survivors aged 13-18 years. A questionnaire explored participants' perceptions of their port scars. Four additional validated tools were used: Fitzpatrick scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index, and a Distress Thermometer.Results: Among 100 participants (median age 15.8 years [13][14][15][16][17][18], median duration since treatment 8 years [1.5-14.8]), 75 'never/occasionally' thought about their port scars, 85 were not bothered by its location and 87 would not have preferred another site. Eleven participants were highly impacted by their scars: six thought about their scar 'everyday/all the time' , four were highly bothered by its location, and nine would have preferred a different location. There was an association between the desire for different scar location and how much the location bothered participants (p < 0.0001), female sex (p = 0.03) and Patient POSAS score (p = 0.04). Conclusion:A port scar on the anterior chest wall was not a major concern for the majority of this cohort. A minority of participants were highly impacted by the scar and its location. Advance identification of those likely to be impacted by their scars may not be possible.