Endovascular exclusion appears to be an efficacious means of treating ACF and averting the significant blood loss commonly encountered in conventional repair of these lesions. However, some reviews have suggested equal success with open repair. There is limited available published literature on ACF management and outcome, and likely reporting bias attached to both open and endovascular results that are published. With a randomized controlled trial unlikely to occur, a prospective registry may provide better outcome data.

NF has been established as a safe operation for lung transplant patients. Late Nissen fundoplication did not improve lung function significantly amongst lung transplanted patients; however, patients with symptomatic GERD may have benefited from Nissen fundoplication in terms of symptom relief. A multicenter randomized control trial is needed to assess the effect of early unselected reflux control on respiratory function and graft survival.

Background: Evidence-based interventions may reduce mortality in surgical patients. This study documented the prevalence of sepsis, adherence to guidelines in its management, and timing of source control in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency.Methods: Patients aged 16 years or more presenting with emergency general surgery problems were identified over a 7-day period and then screened for sepsis compliance (using the Sepsis Six standards, devised for severe sepsis) and the timing of source control (whether radiological or surgical). Exploratory analyses examined associations between the mode (emergency department or general practitioner) and time of admission, adherence to the sepsis guidelines, and outcomes (complications or death within 30 days).Results: Of a total of 5067 patients from 97 hospitals across the UK, 911 (18⋅0 per cent) fulfilled the criteria for sepsis, 165 (3⋅3 per cent) for severe sepsis and 24 (0⋅5 per cent) for septic shock. Timely delivery of all Sepsis Six guidelines for patients with severe sepsis was achieved in four patients. For patients with severe sepsis, 17⋅6-94⋅5 per cent of individual guidelines within the Sepsis Six were delivered. Oxygen was the criterion most likely to be missed, followed by blood cultures in all sepsis severity categories. Surgery for source control occurred a median of 19⋅8 (i.q.r. 10⋅0-35⋅4) h after diagnosis. Omission of Sepsis Six parameters did not appear to be associated with an increase in morbidity or mortality. Conclusion:Although sepsis was common in general surgical patients presenting as an emergency, adherence to severe sepsis guidelines was incomplete in the majority. Despite this, no evidence of harm was apparent. * Members of the UK National Surgical Research Collaborative are co-authors of this study and can be found under the heading Collaborators Paper accepted 25 October 2016Published online in Wiley Online Library (www.bjs.co.uk). DOI: 10.1002/bjs.10432 IntroductionGeneral surgical patients presenting as an emergency account for over 7 per cent of hospital episodes in the USA and 14 000 ICU admissions per year in the UK 1 -3 . Sepsis is prevalent in this patient group. Early diagnosis of severe sepsis and initiation of goal-directed therapy can reduce mortality, irrespective of the need for surgery 4,5 . This evidence was used to develop a care bundle known as the Sepsis Six for managing patients with severe sepsis (Table 1) 6,7 . These standards have been endorsed by many professional organizations, including the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal Colleges of Surgeons of England and Ireland 1,2,8,9 . Complete application of these interventions is thought to be associated with as much as a one-third reduction in mortality from sepsis, although uptake is uncertain amongst surgical patients presenting as an emergency 4,6 .The main aims of the present study were to assess adherence to the Sepsis Six guidelines and identify the timing of source control in general su...

BackgroundThe evidence for treatment decision‐making in emergency general surgery has not been summarized previously. The aim of this overview was to review the quantity and quality of systematic review evidence for the most common emergency surgical conditions.MethodsSystematic reviews of the most common conditions requiring unplanned admission and treatment managed by general surgeons were eligible for inclusion. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases were searched to April 2014. The number and type (randomized or non‐randomized) of included studies and patients were extracted and summarized. The total number of unique studies was recorded for each condition. The nature of the interventions (surgical, non‐surgical invasive or non‐invasive) was documented. The quality of reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR checklist.ResultsThe 106 included reviews focused mainly on bowel conditions (42), appendicitis (40) and gallstone disease (17). Fifty‐one (48·1 per cent) included RCTs alone, 79 (74·5 per cent) included at least one RCT and 25 (23·6 per cent) summarized non‐randomized evidence alone. Reviews included 727 unique studies, of which 30·3 per cent were RCTs. Sixty‐five reviews compared different types of surgical intervention and 27 summarized trials of surgical versus non‐surgical interventions. Fifty‐seven reviews (53·8 per cent) were rated as low risk of bias.ConclusionThis overview of reviews highlights the need for more and better research in this field.

No abstract