Explore the vast range of titles available.

Early diagnosis and treatment of complications after major abdominal surgery can decrease associated morbidity and mortality. Postoperative CRP levels have shown a strong correlation with complications. Aim of this systematic review and pooled-analysis was to assess postoperative values of CRP as a marker for major complications and construct a prediction model. A systematic review was performed for CRP levels as a predictor for complications after major abdominal surgery (MAS). Raw data was obtained from seven studies, including 1427 patients. A logit regression model assessed the probability of major complications as a function of CRP levels on the third postoperative day. Two practical cut-offs are proposed: an optimal cut-off for safe discharge in a fast track protocol and another for early identification of patients with increased risk for major complications. A prediction model was calculated for major complications as a function of CRP levels on the third postoperative day. Based on the model several cut-offs for CRP are proposed. For instance, a two cut-off system may be applied, consisting of a safe discharge criterion with CRP levels below 75 mg/L, with a negative predictive value of 97.2%. A second cut-off is set at 215 mg/L (probability 20%) and serves as a predictor of complications, indicating additional CT-scan imaging. The present study provides insight in the interpretation of CRP levels after major abdominal surgery, proposing a prediction model for major complications as a function of CRP on postoperative day 3. Cut-offs for CRP may be implemented for safe early-discharge in a fast-track protocol and, secondly as a threshold for additional examinations, such as CT-scan imaging, even in absence of clinical signs, to confirm or exclude major complications. The prediction model allows for setting a cut-off at the discretion of individual surgeons or surgical departments.

Trauma-related (preventable) death is used to evaluate the management and quality of trauma care worldwide. Therefore, it is necessary to identify fatalities in the trauma care population and assess them on preventability. However, the definition on trauma-related preventable death lacks validity due to differences in terminology and classifications. This study aims to reach consensus on the definition of trauma-related preventable death by performing a Delphi procedure, thereby, improving the assessment of trauma-related preventable death and thereby enhancing the quality of trauma care. Based on the results of a recently performed systematic review Hakkenbrak (2021). The definitions used to describe trauma-related preventable death could be divided into four categories: 1) Clinical definition based on panel review or expert opinion, 2) Trauma prediction algorithm, 3) Clinical definition with an additional trauma prediction algorithm and 4) Others (e.g., errors in care or detailed clinical definition). A three round, electronic Delphi study will be performed in the Netherlands to reach consensus. Experts from the department of Trauma surgery, Neurosurgery, Forensic medicine, Anaesthesiology and Emergency medicine, of the designated Level 1 trauma centres in the Netherlands, will be invited to participate. In the first round the panel will comment on the composed categories and trauma prediction algorithms. In the second and third round a feedback report will be presented and the questions with disagreement will be retested. The identification and assessment of trauma-related preventable death is necessary to evaluate and improve trauma care. Therefore, a valid, fair, and applicable definition of trauma-related preventable death is required. The Delphi technique is utilized to reach group consensus to obtain a scientifically valid definition of trauma-related preventable death.

Background: Diagnosing an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture based on a physical examination remains a challenge for both surgeons and physical therapists. The lever sign test was developed to overcome the practical limitations of other tests and to optimize diagnosis. An evaluation of the measurement properties of the lever sign test is needed to make adequate interpretations in practice. Purpose: To evaluate the reliability and diagnostic value of the lever sign test. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 94 patients were recruited between November 2014 and July 2016. Patients were included if they were at least 16 years old, suffered from knee trauma, and had indications for knee arthroscopic surgery. Lever sign, anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot-shift test outcomes were examined by an orthopaedic/trauma surgeon and a physical therapist. A test-retest design was used to investigate interrater reliability. Moreover, the lever sign test outcomes, alone and in combination with the other diagnostic tests, were compared with arthroscopic results, which served as the gold standard for the test’s diagnostic value. Results: The lever sign test and pivot-shift test had kappa values exceeding 0.80 for interrater reliability. The kappa values for the anterior drawer test and Lachman test were 0.80 and 0.77, respectively. The lever sign test showed the highest specificity (100%) and the lowest sensitivity (39%) when compared with the other 3 tests. Moreover, its positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 65%, respectively, while an accuracy of 71% was calculated. Clustering the lever sign test parallel with the other 3 tests resulted in the highest accuracy of 91%. Conclusion: The lever sign test appears to have high interrater reliability and is the most specific test, showing a maximal positive predictive value. A positive lever sign test result indicates an ACL rupture. These results support the added value of the lever sign test for diagnosing ACL ruptures.

Unequivocal international guidelines regarding the diagnosis and management of patients with acute appendicitis are lacking. The aim of the consensus meeting 2015 of the EAES was to generate a European guideline based on best available evidence and expert opinions of a panel of EAES members. After a systematic review of the literature by an international group of surgical research fellows, an expert panel with extensive clinical experience in the management of appendicitis discussed statements and recommendations. Statements and recommendations with more than 70 % agreement by the experts were selected for a web survey and the consensus meeting of the EAES in Bucharest in June 2015. EAES members and attendees at the EAES meeting in Bucharest could vote on these statements and recommendations. In the case of more than 70 % agreement, the statement or recommendation was defined as supported by the scientific community. Results from both the web survey and the consensus meeting in Bucharest are presented as percentages. In total, 46 statements and recommendations were selected for the web survey and consensus meeting. More than 232 members and attendees voted on them. In 41 of 46 statements and recommendations, more than 70 % agreement was reached. All 46 statements and recommendations are presented in this paper. They comprise topics regarding the diagnostic work-up, treatment indications, procedural aspects and post-operative care. The consensus meeting produced 46 statements and recommendations on the diagnostic work-up and management of appendicitis. The majority of the EAES members supported these statements. These consensus proceedings provide additional guidance to surgeons and surgical residents providing care to patients with appendicitis.