Comparing the surgical management of acute paediatric scrotal pain between adult urologists and general surgeons in the UK: an observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Acute scrotal pain is a common paediatric surgical emergency. Assessment and timely exploration are required to rule out testicular torsion (TT) and prevent unnecessary morbidity. METHODS: A retrospective observational cohort study was carried out at two district general hospitals in the UK for boys aged ≤16 years presenting with acute scrotal pain between January 2014 and October 2017 managed by adult general surgery (AGS) at one hospital and adult urology (AU) at the other. RESULTS: Some 565 patients were eligible for inclusion (n=364 AGS, n=201 AU). A higher proportion of patients underwent surgical exploration at AGS compared with AU (277/346 (80.1%) vs 96/201 (47.8%); p<0.001). Of those who underwent exploration, 101/373 (27.1%) had TT, of whom 25/101 (24.8%) underwent orchidectomy and 125/373 (33.5%) had torted testicular appendage. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of orchidectomy between AGS (19/68, 27.9%) and AU (6/33, 18.2%) with testicular salvage rates of 72.1% and 81.8%, respectively (p=0.334). Patients were twice as likely to be readmitted at AGS as at AU (28/346 (8.1%) vs 8/201 (4.0%); p=0.073). CONCLUSION: Although intraoperative findings were similar between adult general surgeons and urologists, there were significant differences in surgical management, with a higher rate of surgical exploration by general surgeons. Testicular salvage and 30-day postoperative morbidity rates at both institutions were acceptable but the readmission rate was high at 6.6%. It is not known why there is a heterogeneity in management of acute scrotal pain between specialist centres, and further prospective investigations are warranted.

A Comparison of Outcomes in Patients with Infrapopliteal Disease Randomised to Vein Bypass or Plain Balloon Angioplasty in the Bypass vs. Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare outcomes in a subgroup of patients with infrapopliteal (IP) disease randomised to infrapopliteal vein bypass (VB) or plain balloon angioplasty (PBA) in the original BASIL trial. METHODS: A comparison of outcomes from patients randomised to VB or PBA undergoing revascularisation for severe limb ischaemia (SLI) because of IP disease with or without femoropopliteal disease. Data were extracted from case report forms from the BASIL trial. The primary outcome was amputation free survival (AFS); secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS), 30 day mortality and morbidity, freedom from arterial re-intervention, immediate technical success, repeat and crossover interventions, length of hospital stay, and quality of revascularisation. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were identified in the BASIL study with IP disease, 56 randomised to IP VB, and 48 to IP PBA. Groups were similar at baseline except for more chronic kidney disease and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use in the VB group, and more previous surgical arterial intervention and antihypertensive use in the PBA group. There were no statistically significant differences in AFS or OS; however, clinically important trends were apparent in favour of a VB first strategy. Patients allocated to VB demonstrated significantly quicker relief of rest pain when compared with PBA (p = .005), but no significant differences in improved tissue healing. Median length of index hospital admission was significantly greater in the VB than in the PBA group (18 vs. 10 days, p < .0001) but there was no difference between the two groups in median total hospital stay between randomisation and the primary endpoint (VB 43.5 vs. PBA 42 days). CONCLUSIONS: Further randomised trials, like BASIL-2 and BEST-CLI, are required to determine whether patients with severe limb ischaemia who require IP revascularisation and who are suitable for VB should have bypass or endovascular intervention as their primary revascularisation procedure.