Ryan Lawless

Background: The post-operative management of simple (acute) appendicitis differs throughout the United States. Guidelines regarding post-operative antibiotic usage remain unclear, and treatment generally is dictated by surgeon preference. We hypothesize that post-operative antibiotic use for simple appendicitis is not associated with lower post-operative complication rates. Methods: In a post-hoc analysis in a large multi-center observational study, only patients with an intra-operative diagnosis of AAST EGS Grade I were included. Subjects were classified into those receiving post-operative antibiotics (POST) and those given pre-operative antibiotics only (NONE). Clinical outcomes examined were length of stay (LOS), 30-day emergency department (ED) visits and hospital re-admissions, secondary interventions, surgical site infection (SSI), and intra-abdominal abscess (IAA). Results: A total of 2,191 subjects were included, of whom 612 (28%) received post-operative antibiotics. Compared with the NONE group, POST patients were older (age 37 [range 26–50] versus 33 [26–46] years; p < 0.001), weighed more (82 [70–96] versus 79 [68–93] kg (p = 0.038), and had higher white blood cell counts (13.5 ± 4.2 versus 13.1 ± 4.4/10³/mcL (p = 0.046), Alvarado Scores (6 [5–7] versus 6 [5–7]; p < 0.001), and Charlson Comorbidity Indices (median score 0 in both cohorts; p < 0.001). The POST patients had a longer LOS (1 [1-2] versus 1 [1-1] days; p < 0.001). There were no differences in the number who had ED visits within 30 days (9% versus 8%; p = 0.435), hospital re-admission (4% versus 2%; p = 0.165), an index hospitalization SSI (0.2% for both cohorts; p = 0.69), an SSI within 30 days (4% versus 2%; p = 0.165), index hospitalization IAA rate (0.3% versus 0.1%; p = 0.190), 30-day IAA (2% versus 1%; p = 0.71), index hospitalization interventions (0.5% versus 0.1%; p = 0.137) or 30-day secondary interventions (2% versus 1%; p = 0.155). Conclusions: Post-operative antibiotic use after appendectomy for simple appendicitis is not associated with better post-operative clinical outcomes at index hospitalization or at 30 days after discharge.

BACKGROUND: Use of the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) examination in patients with pelvic fractures has been reported as unreliable. We hypothesized that FAST is a reliable method for detecting clinically significant intra-abdominal hemorrhage in patients with pelvic fractures. METHODS: All patients with pelvic fractures over a 10-year period were reviewed at a Level I trauma center. The predictive ability of FAST was assessed by calculating the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value against the criterion standard of either computed tomography (CT) or laparotomy findings. The FAST examination was considered “false negative” if findings at laparotomy indicated traumatic intra-abdominal hemorrhage. Likewise, the FAST examination was considered “false positive” if either CT or findings at laparotomy indicated no intra-abdominal hemorrhage. Hemodynamic instability scores were calculated for all patients. RESULTS: There were 1,456 patients with pelvic fractures and an initial FAST reviewed; 1,219 (83.7%) underwent FAST and either CT or operative exploration. Median age was 43 years (interquartile range, 26–56 years) and mean Injury Severity Score was 18.5 ± 12.3. The sensitivity and specificity for FAST in this group of patients with pelvic fracture was 85.4% and 98.1%, respectively. The positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 78.4% and 98.8%, respectively. Of 21 patients with a false-positive FAST, 15 (71.4%) were confirmed with a negative CT scan, and 6 (28.6%) underwent laparotomy without findings of intra-abdominal hemorrhage. Of 13 patients with a false-negative FAST, all were identified with positive findings at the time of laparotomy. The specificity of the FAST examination remained high regardless of hemodynamic instability score grade. CONCLUSION: The false positive rate of FAST examination for intra-abdominal hemorrhage is 1.1%. These data suggest that a positive FAST in this clinical scenario should be considered to represent intra-abdominal fluid. This series contradicts prior reports that FAST is unreliable in patients with pelvic fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, level III.