The electronic diagnostic tools of acute appendicitis present serious disadvantages, thus some clinical scores have been formed in order to reach the diagnosis easily and safely. Alvarado and RIPASA scores are the most commonly used and the purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of these two scoring systems. We searched MEDLINE (1966-2017), Scopus (2004-2017), ClinicalTrials.gov (2008-2017), Google Scholar (2004-2017) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (1999-2017) databases. We selected all observational cohort studies that reported diagnostic parameters of Alvarado and RIPASA diagnostic scores on patients with clinical status of acute appendicitis. Statistical meta-analysis was performed with Meta Disc 1.4 software. Twelve studies were included in our meta-analysis which enrolled 2161 patients. The sensitivity of RIPASA score was 94% (95% CI, 92%-95%) and the specificity was 55% (95% CI, 51%-55%). In addition, the area under the Roc Curve (AUC) was 0.9431 and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 24.66 (95% CI, 8.06 to 75.43). The sensitivity of Alvarado score was 69% (95% CI, 67%-71%) and the specificity was 77% (95% CI, 74%-80%). Moreover, the AUC was 0.7944 and the diagnostic Odds Ratio was 7.99 (95% CI, 4.75 to 13.43). RIPASA scoring system is more sensitive than Alvarado one, but the low specificity forms the need of a supplementary mean to provide the accurate diagnosis. Nevertheless, the wide and safe use of both tests is recommended in health systems that lack electronic diagnostic tests, such us developing countries or rural hospitals.

Colorectal anastomoses continuous to pose a significant challenge in current surgical practice. Anastomotic leakage remains one of the most frequent and dramatic complications of colorectal surgery, even in centres of high specialisation. Diabetes is a well-established independent factor which results in higher anastomotic leakage rates. Fibrin sealants have been applied in experimental and clinical studies for the prevention of anastomotic dehiscence. However, little is known regarding their impact on diabetic patients. Several fibrin sealants have been proposed as adjunct to standard surgical techniques to prevent leakage from colonic anastomoses following the reversal of temporary colostomies, approved for general haemostasis. This review summarises current advances in colorectal anastomoses and provides evidence that may strengthen the need for tissue sealants in colorectal anastomoses of diabetic patients. We searched Medline (1966–2016) and Scopus (2004–2016) for current evidence in the field. To date, there is no evidence to support the use of fibrin sealants as an adjunct in diabetic patients who undergo colorectal surgery. Experimental animal models with extreme diabetes could be of significant use in the present field and further research is needed prior to application of fibrin sealants in a clinical setting.

Background/Aim: Diabetes mellitus is an established risk factor of colorectal anastomosis failure. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of TISSEEL® in anastomotic healing. Materials and Methods: Forty male, Sprague-Dawley rats were used. Diabetes was induced in half of them by intraperitoneal injection of Streptozotocin, 60 mg/kg. One week after the injection, animals were operated and a 1 cm segment was removed and an end-to-end hand sewn anastomosis was performed. TISSEEL® was applied in each group (diabetic, non-diabetic) following randomization. Results: The pathology analysis revealed improved tissue remodeling in the TISSEEL® group, both for the normoglycemic and the diabetic group. Specifically, the extent of inflammation was decreased (p<0.001), whereas fibroblast and collagen formation were improved (p=0.040 and p=0.008). Neovascularization was also improved (p=0.047). Conclusion: Application of TISSEEL® on colorectal anastomoses improves healing in rats that suffer from severe hyperglycemia.

Objective: The purpose of the present systematic review is to identify whether an association between gallbladder polyps and colorectal adenoma or neoplasia exists. Data sources: We conducted a systematic review searching the Medline (1966-2016), Scopus (2004-2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (2008-2016) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials CENTRAL (1999-2016) databases together with reference lists from included studies. Study eligibility criteria: All prospective and retrospective observational cohort studies were included. Results: Four studies were finally included which included 17,437 patients. The association between gallbladder polyps and colorectal adenoma or even neoplasia is not unanimously supported. However, a possible association is clearly depicted. According to one study it seems that this correlation seems to become significant only when the gallbladder polyps exceed the size of 5 mm. However, the impact of size of gallbladder polyps was not investigated in the remaining studies. Conclusion: According to the results of our systematic review there is some evidence to support the hypothesis that gallbladder polyps might adequately predict future risk of colorectal neoplasia. At present, however, current knowledge is very limited and the available data scarce. In this context further studies are necessary to be carried out, before the presence of gallbladder polyps on ultrasound can be recommended as an indication to perform a screening colonoscopy on the same patient. (C) 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.