Debido a que no hay un acuerdo general y basados en diferentes experiencias, el manejo genera controversia Otros proponen el manejo con una penicilina y estreptomicina o cefalosporina y gentamicina 1. Nosotros proponemos clindamicina y gentamicina. Un estudio realizado por Gillick y cols. Gahukamble y cols.
|Published (Last):||18 January 2011|
|PDF File Size:||14.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||17.39 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Data, even good quality data is just an addendum to surgical experience in any given clinical scenario. Thus, a few remarks: 1. What the data shows is that it is not necessary to perform an interval appendicectomy following resolution.
Of course, this, like everything else is not an absolute. Although exploratory laparotomies looking for the non-existent "chronic appendicitis" is 19th century surgery, the 21st century is the era of increasing "stump appendicitis".
The role of antibiotics, similar to any intra-abdominal scenario remain controversial. There is no doubt antibiotics can "cure" some cases of appendicitis; and they are no longer indicated once the inflammation has transitioned into abscess-formation.
However, similar to pancreatitis, cholecystitis, diverticulitis, there is no doubt we are too non-selective in our commencement of antibiotics. In the acute scenario, most of us would only commence antibiotics preoperatively overnight,,while waiting to go to theatre, if the patient were pyrexial, tachycardiac with peritonism, etc.
The place for OS regime is a different scenario, and one that has evolved with time. So, more than Bing depend on number of days on presentation or presence of a definite palpable mass, it should be considered a wait-and-watch approach, in a given clinical scenario.
One where the patient has minimal symptoms; shows no systemic signs of infection, has minimal tenderness on palpation I. Evidence that tells us the body has damage-controlled the situation, and is doing a good job of resolving the inflammation.
The mere presence of a palpable mass is not a decider for surgery in any acute process. With increasing obesity, phlegmons are not easily palpable and with increased imaging, more appendicitis is associated with a radiological mass. Hence, once again decision on mode of management is clinical. Similar to acute cholecystitis, there is no contradiction to operating in the presence of an acutely inflamed phlegmon. There is enough data to show that acute cholecystectomy is as safe as elective; whereas it is the fibrotic, shrunken gall bladder with thick organised adhesions where the risk lies.
Acute appendicitis is usually a first-time presentation. Thus, if surgery is indicated, the detection of a mass below the tenderness or one being discovered per-operatively is no contra-indication - after a few hours of disease, it is the norm!
The safety of operating is more linked to surgical skill. In the pre-laparoscopic era, interns or SHOs performed the appendicectomies. Now, they require closer, direct supervision. It is the surgeon, not the pathological state that is the limiting factor. In the presence of good CT imaging, there is very little role for an interval colonoscopy.
Specially in the older patient, a repeat interval CTColonogram makes more sense; particularly with the increasing age of our populations, with associated renal morbidity, making bowel prep a significant risk. Tagged CTCs do not require prep. This is similar to the thinking in abdominal carcinomatosis - Unknown primary, where we would no longer scope patients with the availability of high resolution multisclicers.
I think the case-selection criteria will be very interesting, and it will need to be a widespread and longer-term trial. Thus, technology alters practice, and practice changes should be made in relation to good quality evidence. However, the best-quality evidence in surgery has been shown to be surgical experience.
We have a duty to keep up-to-date in gaining knowledge, but ensure it is our wisdom that determines which snippet of knowledge to apply at what point in each given case
Plastrón Apendicular, Discusión
Tojajin Patients are recommended to sit up on the edge of the bed and walk short distances several times a day. A score below 5 suggests against a diagnosis of appendicitis, apendicotis a score of 7 or more is predictive of acute appendicitis. People with suspected appendicitis may have to undergo a medical evacuation. Diverticulitis apendicular y apendicitis aguda: diferencias y semejanzas An intravenous drip is used to hydrate the person who will be having surgery. Otherwise, spinal anaesthesia may be used.
APENDICULAR PLASTRON PDF
Fenrijinn Previously it was believed that early surgical intervention increases the mortality in patients with appendicular abscess and hence the well known Ochsner Sherren regime was followed. Is early laparoscopic appendectomy feasible in children with acute appendicitis presenting with an appendiceal mass? Unless there is intestinal occlusion, in those patients with tender mass or appendicular abscess, we must start a medical treatment based on antibiotics and, later on, carry out the appendectomy through laparoscopy. Appenducular proportion of all patients with appendicitis treated for enclosed inflammation is 3. Appendkcular malignancy is rare and may be missed if appendicectomy is not performed; however, it is likely that such patients will have either a nonresolving mass or early recurrence. The most common operative complications are wound infection, intra-abdominal abscess, and ileus caused by intra-abdominal adhesions Dindo et al[ 34 ] classificationwhich vary in frequency between open and laparoscopic appendectomy. The exploration often ends in ileocecal resection or a right-sided hemicolectomy due to the technical problems or a suspicion of malignancy because of the distorted tissues[ 1 — 9 ].