Outcomes of Conservative Management of Acute Appendicitis during COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the outcomes of conservative treatment of acute appendicitis. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Fauji Foundation Hospital, Rawalpindi from April to July 2020. METHODOLOGY: All 58 patients (n=58) presenting with acute appendicitis (AA) were included. Assessment was done with Alvarado score (AS) and ultrasound. Treatment was initiated according to the algorithm corresponding with AS. Those with AS score of 4 or less were started on outpatient oral antibiotics. Patients with AS score of 5 or more were admitted for IV antibiotics. If the symptoms and signs resolved, they were sent home on oral antibiotics to complete a course of 5 days. If their condition did not improve in 72 hours or deteriorated at any time, appendectomy was done. Outcomes were recorded and analysed on SPSS. RESULTS: Out of 58 patients, 16 were treated with oral, while 42 with IV antibiotics. This yielded a statistically significant difference on the course of disease (p=0.028). Resolution of symptoms was seen in 27.6% (n=16) with conservative management; whereas, 72.4% (n=42) patients needed a subsequent appendectomy. The difference in operative findings between patients, who had been given oral or IV antibiotics was statistically insignificant (p=0.536). Diagnostic value of leukocyte count (TLC), ultrasound and AS was not found to be significant. CONCLUSION: Non-operative management is successful in about a quarter of the patients of AA. There is very limited value of sonography, laboratory parameters, or AS in confirming the diagnosis of AA. Key Words: Appendicitis, Conservative treatmen, COVID-19.

Outcomes of Conservative Management of Acute Appendicitis during COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the outcomes of conservative treatment of acute appendicitis. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Fauji Foundation Hospital, Rawalpindi from April to July 2020.  Methodology: All 58 patients (n=58) presenting with acute appendicitis (AA) were included. Assessment was done with Alvarado score (AS) and ultrasound. Treatment was initiated according to the algorithm corresponding with AS. Those with AS score of 4 or less were started on outpatient oral antibiotics. Patients with AS score of 5 or more were admitted for IV antibiotics. If the symptoms and signs resolved, they were sent home on oral antibiotics to complete a course of 5 days. If their condition did not improve in 72 hours or deteriorated at any time, appendectomy was done. Outcomes were recorded and analysed on SPSS. RESULTS: Out of 58 patients, 16 were treated with oral, while 42 with IV antibiotics. This yielded a statistically significant difference on the course of disease (p=0.028). Resolution of symptoms was seen in 27.6% (n=16) with conservative management; whereas, 72.4% (n=42) patients needed a subsequent appendectomy. The difference in operative findings between patients, who had been given oral or IV antibiotics was statistically insignificant (p=0.536). Diagnostic value of leukocyte count (TLC), ultrasound and AS was not found to be significant. CONCLUSION: Non-operative management is successful in about a quarter of the patients of AA. There is very limited value of sonography, laboratory parameters, or AS in confirming the diagnosis of AA. Key Words: Appendicitis, Conservative treatmen, COVID-19.

Ependymal enhancement on magnetic resonance imaging for the identification of high-grade gliomas.

BACKGROUND: High-grade gliomas have high infiltrative potential and spread along white matter and blood vessels. Enhancement of ependymal lining on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is considered as a marker of parenchymal spread of disease. In this study, we aimed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of ependymal enhancement (EE) for identification of high-grade glial tumors. METHODS: We reviewed preoperative MRI scans of 94 consecutive patients surgically treated for space occupying lesions of the brain for EE. Assessment for EE was blind to the final histopathological diagnosis of the patient. An enhancement of more than 2 mm was considered positive. Pathologies of these patients were reviewed and matched to the radiological findings. Percentage and proportion of EE in glial and non-glial pathology groups was then calculated and a sensitivity and specificity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The population included 94 cases (64 males and 30 females) with population mean age 45 ± 15.5 years. Sensitivity of EE in differentiating glioma from total number of cases was 82.61% specificity 35.42% (P value = 0.048). EE had a sensitivity of 67.39% and specificity of 64.58% (P value = 0.002) in identifying high-grade glioma within the glioma group with a positive predictive value of 64.58% (95% CI: 49.46% to 77.83%), negative predictive value of 67.39% (95% CI: 51.98% to 80.46%). CONCLUSION: EE has moderate sensitivity and specificity for high-grade gliomas. However, larger sample studies are required for further validation of this observations.

Comparison of Irrigation versus No Irrigation during Burr Hole Evacuation of Chronic Subdural Hematoma.

Objective To compare the results of the use of irrigation versus no irrigation during burr hole evacuation of chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH). Methodology The study was a retrospective chart review of those patients who underwent burr hole evacuation of CSDH during a period of 5 years. Cases were divided into two groups based on the use of irrigation during surgery. A subdural drain was placed in all patients (i.e., in both the irrigation and no-irrigation groups) and removed 24 to 48 hours postoperatively. Results The total sample size was 56, of which 34 patients were in the irrigation group and 22 in the no-irrigation group. Recurrence rate was 17.6% in the irrigation group and 9.1% in the no-irrigation group (p = 0.46). Systemic complications were predominantly cardiac related in the no-irrigation group compared with respiratory complications in the irrigation group. The irrigation group had a mortality rate of 5.9% compared with 4.5% in the no-irrigation group (p = 0.66). Conclusion No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups in terms of recurrence or mortality.