Introduction: Diffuse peritonitis is a serious disease. It is often addressed within urgent management of an unstable patient in shock. The therapy consists of treatment of the source of peritonitis, decontamination of the abdominal cavity, stabilization of the patient and comprehensive resuscitation care in an intensive care unit. A number of scoring systems to determine patient prognosis are available, but most of them require complex input data, making their practical application a substantial problem. Objective: Our aim was to assess simple scoring systems within a cohort, evaluate the level of mortality, morbidity, and duration of hospital stay, followed by a comparison of the acquired data with the literature and determination of an easily implementable scoring system for use in clinical practice. Material and Methods: We evaluated a group of patients with diffuse peritonitis who underwent surgery in the 2015–2019 period. Medical history, surgical findings, and paraclinical examinations were used as the input for four scoring systems commonly used in practice—MPI, qSOFA, ECOG, and ASA. We compared the results between the systems and with the literature. Results: Our cohort included 274 patients diagnosed with diffuse peritonitis. Mortality was 22.6%, morbidity 73.4%, with a 25.2 day average duration of hospital stay. Mortality and morbidity increased with rising MPI and qSOFA, well-established scoring systems, but also with rising ASA and ECOG, similarly to MPI and qSOFA. Conclusions: The utilized scoring systems correlated well with the severity of the condition and with predicted mortality and morbidity as reported in the literature. Simple scoring systems primarily used in other indications (i.e., ASA and ECOG) have a similar predictive value in our cohort as commonly used systems (MPI, qSOFA). We recommend them in routine clinical practice due to their simplicity.

Neurogenic tumors are the third most common tumors occurring within the mediastinum. Predominantly completely asymptomatic, they are most often found in the posterior mediastinum, although they may also be located, albeit rarely, in the middle mediastinum. Thus, in the cases of tumors localized in the middle mediastinum, schwannomas of the phrenic nerve must always be considered. In this case, a male patient presented with a tumor of the middle mediastinum. PET/CT scan determined that it was a circumscribed tumor without signs of dissemination. However, due to the tumor's location, a preoperative biopsy of the tumor was not possible. Therefore, the patient underwent videothoracoscopic extirpation of the tumor, including the necessary resection of the phrenic nerve that passed through the centre of the tumor. Subsequent histological analysis definitively confirmed a schwannoma with low proliferative activity. Differential diagnosis of mediastinal tumours is very difficult; however, in the case of circumscribed tumours not invading the surrounding tissues, proceeding to surgical revision, with the complete removal of the tumour, is possible, even without determining the histological nature. Minimally invasive surgical techniques dominate the treatment of neurogenic tumors of the mediastinum; they are associated with minimal complications and allow a rapid return of the patient to their normal activities.

Background: Diffuse peritonitis is an acute abdominal condition characterized by high mortality. The main treatment modality is surgery, requiring a subsequent prolonged hospital stay. These patients are, among other things, at risk of developing hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP), which considerably worsens their treatment outcomes. This study aimed to extend the existing knowledge by providing more detailed microbiological characteristics of complicating HAP in patients with secondary peritonitis, including the identification of isolated bacterial pathogens and their potential sources. Methods: The 2015–2019 retrospective study comprised all patients with an intraoperatively confirmed diagnosis of secondary diffuse peritonitis who were classified in accordance with the quick Sepsis Related Organ Failure Assessment scoring system. Results: HAP developed in 15% of patients. The 90-day mortality rates were 53% and 24% in patients with and without HAP; respectively. The most frequent pathogens responsible for HAP were Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Enterobacter cloacae complex and Enterococcus faecalis. Multidrug resistance to antibiotics was found in 38% of bacterial pathogens. Clonal spread of these bacterial pathogens among patients was not detected. Rather, the endogenous characteristic of HAP was confirmed. Conclusions: The initial antibiotic therapy of complicating HAP in patients with secondary peritonitis must be effective mainly against enterobacteria, including strains with the production of ESBL and AmpC beta-lactamases, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterococcus faecalis. The study further highlighted the importance of monitoring the respiratory tract bacterial microflora in patients with secondary peritonitis. The results should be used for initial antibiotic treatment of complicating HAP instances.

Background: This study highlights an unusual and previously unreported adverse event (AE) following the minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). The standard treatment for WON currently involves primary drainage via an ultrasound-guided endoscopic, typically transgastric, approach. This method is associated with lower mortality and morbidity rates compared to traditional surgery. However, emerging AEs from these procedures may necessitate the involvement of a multidisciplinary team. Our case highlights the potential for gastrovesical fistula development as a rare AE following endoscopic drainage. Treatment for our patient prioritized individualized and non-surgical strategy, although surgical revision was also considered. Case Description: A 42-year-old male presented with a large symptomatic pancreatic WON refractory to conservative management, necessitating transgastric drainage. Despite the gradual evacuation of the WON contents, treatment was complicated by stent-related issues, including inadvertent bladder penetration. Rather than surgical correction, a collaborative approach among urology, gastroenterology, and surgery teams was employed, focusing on conservative treatment strategies. This approach successfully resolved the fistula, leading to the patient’s full recovery. Conclusions: Given the increasing use of endoscopic transluminal drainage in (peri)pancreatic collections, it is crucial to be aware of all potential AEs. To our knowledge, this is the first documented case of gastrovesical fistula following drainage of WON. Early recognition and a multidisciplinary approach are vital to manage this event.