Management of Appendiceal Mass and Abscess. An 11-Year Experience.

The aim of our study is to compare the results of emergency surgery versus conservative treatment with interval surgery in patients diagnosed with appendiceal mass and abscess. A retrospective review of 48 patients with appendiceal mass and abscess treated from January 2002 to January 2013 at General Surgery Department of Kipshidze Central University Hospital was performed. Patients with emergency surgery were compared to patients treated by nonoperative management with interval surgery. Demographics, clinical profile, and operative outcomes were studied. The emergency surgery group included 25 patients, and the interval surgery group included 23 patients. The clinical characteristics of the emergency surgery and interval surgery groups were not statistically different. In the emergency surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 17 patients, and colonic resections (ileocecectomy or right hemicolectomy) were performed on 8 patients. In the interval surgery group, an open appendectomy was performed on 21 patients, and colonic resections were performed on 2 patients. There were no statistical differences in types of surgery, postoperative complications, operation time without colonic resections, and postoperative hospitalization period among these 2 groups. Operation time with colonic resections was of greater duration in the emergency surgery group than in the interval surgery group (P = 0.04). Both treatment methods for appendiceal mass and abscess have the same results. The surgeon must consider clinical symptoms and results of investigations in each particular case when choosing an appropriate treatment method. Prospective randomized controlled trials are required for comparing the results of all 3 treatment methods of appendiceal mass.

Standard polypropylene mesh vs lightweight mesh for Lichtenstein repair of primary inguinal hernia: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The aim of the present clinical study was to compare early and late outcomes after inguinal hernia repair with the heavyweight mesh (HW) and lightweight mesh (LW) during a 3 year follow-up period. METHODS: 226 patients were randomized into LW and HW mesh groups, both of which underwent unilateral primary inguinal hernia repair via the Lichtenstein technique. Wound complications (infection, hematoma, seroma), hernia recurrence, pain and feeling of foreign body in inguinal area were determined in patients. Pain was measured by visual analogue scale. RESULTS: No statistical difference has been found between LW and HW groups by wound complication (P = 0.80). One case of hernia recurrence has been mentioned in both groups one year after hernioplasty. But there was no detectable difference between the two groups. No significant difference has been found between LW and HW groups by frequency of chronic pain 7 days, 1 and 3 months, 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery. As for the feeling of foreign body in groin it is similar in both groups after 1 and 3 months. Level of feeling of foreign body was significantly lower in LW group 1, 2, and 3 years after surgery, than in HW group (P = 0.03, P = 0.02, P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our research shows no significant difference in wound complications, hernia recurrence and chronic pain after Lichtenstein hernioplasty, by using of LW and HW meshes. The usage of the LW mesh was associated with less feeling of foreign body than that of the HW mesh, what can be considered as prevalence of LW mesh hernioplasty.