-
World Journal of Surgery Apr 2023Save for the contribution of Charles McBurney, who described his eponymous point and the appendicectomy incision, the history of appendicectomy is largely unknown among... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Save for the contribution of Charles McBurney, who described his eponymous point and the appendicectomy incision, the history of appendicectomy is largely unknown among the medical profession. This review traces the history from the first anatomical depiction of the appendix to the development of open appendicectomy and the recent minimally invasive and non-operative methods.
METHODS
Historical articles, monographs and books containing anatomical descriptions of the vermiform appendix and reports of appendicitis and its surgical treatment were retrieved after searching the PubMed, Google Scholar and Embase databases from their inception to 31 March 2022.
RESULTS
The first inadvertent appendicectomy was performed during an operation for a groin hernia by Cookesley in 1731, and Mestivier was the first to drain a right iliac fossa abscess, due to appendicitis, in 1757. Krönlein performed the first appendicectomy for acute appendicitis in 1884 but his patient died. The first successful appendicectomy for acute appendicitis leading to patient survival was by Morton in 1887. In 1976, Wirschafter and Kaufman performed an inadvertent colonoscopic appendicectomy and, in 1980, Semm carried out the first laparoscopic appendicectomy. The first appendicectomy via a natural orifice (transgastric) appendicectomy was by Rao and Reddy in 2004.
CONCLUSION
This historical review charts the development of surgical knowledge concerning the management of appendicitis, from the first anatomical drawings of the appendix and descriptions of appendicitis to the development of surgical and conservative treatments up to the present day. It also corrects some inaccuracies of attribution in previous historical reviews.
Topics: Humans; Appendicitis; Appendectomy; Appendix; Acute Disease; Abscess; Laparoscopy
PubMed: 36581691
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-022-06874-6 -
CytoJournal 2021The interpretation of results on immunostained cell-block sections has to be compared with the cumulative published data derived predominantly from formalin-fixed... (Review)
Review
The interpretation of results on immunostained cell-block sections has to be compared with the cumulative published data derived predominantly from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections. Because of this, it is important to recognize that the fixation and processing protocol should not be different from the routinely processed FFPE surgical pathology tissue. Exposure to non-formalin fixatives or reagents may interfere with the diagnostic immunoreactivity pattern. The immunoprofile observed on such cell-blocks, which are not processed in a manner similar to the surgical pathology specimens, may not be representative resulting in aberrant results. The field of immunohistochemistry (IHC) is advancing continuously with the standardization of many immunomarkers. A variety of technical advances such as multiplex IHC with refined methodologies and automation is increasing its role in clinical applications. The recent addition of rabbit monoclonal antibodies has further improved sensitivity. As compared to the mouse monoclonal antibodies, the rabbit monoclonal antibodies have 10 to 100 fold higher antigen affinity. Most of the scenarios involve the evaluation of coordinate immunostaining patterns in cell-blocks with relatively scant diagnostic material without proper orientation which is usually retained in most of the surgical pathology specimens. These challenges are addressed if cell-blocks are prepared with some dedicated methodologies such as NextGen CelBloking™ (NGCB) kits. Cell-blocks prepared by NGCB kits also facilitate the easy application of the SCIP (subtractive coordinate immunoreactivity pattern) approach for proper evaluation of coordinate immunoreactivity. Various cell-block and IHC-related issues are discussed in detail.
PubMed: 33598043
DOI: 10.25259/Cytojournal_83_2020 -
Seminars in Plastic Surgery Aug 2020The editors of this issue of Seminars in Plastic Surgery dedicated to propeller flaps met in 2009 at the "1st Tokyo Meeting on Perforator and Propeller Flaps." On that... (Review)
Review
The editors of this issue of Seminars in Plastic Surgery dedicated to propeller flaps met in 2009 at the "1st Tokyo Meeting on Perforator and Propeller Flaps." On that occasion, as part of the advisory panel of the meeting, they contributed to the definition and classification of these flaps. Since then, several evolutions and new applications of propeller flaps appeared in the literature. In 2019, the editors met again in Bologna, Italy, where they decided to collect the experiences from prominent authors in propeller flap surgery and provide them to the readers in this monographic dedicated publication.
PubMed: 33041680
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1715156 -
Hospital Pharmacy Feb 2023Each month, subscribers to receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to...
Each month, subscribers to receive 5 to 6 well-documented monographs on drugs that are newly released or are in late phase 3 trials. The monographs are targeted to Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committees. Subscribers also receive monthly 1-page summary monographs on agents that are useful for agendas and pharmacy/nursing in-services. A comprehensive target drug utilization evaluation/medication use evaluation (DUE/MUE) is also provided each month. With a subscription, the monographs are available online to subscribers. Monographs can be customized to meet the needs of a facility. Through the cooperation of publishes selected reviews in this column. For more information about , contact Wolters Kluwer customer service at 866-397-3433.
PubMed: 36644750
DOI: 10.1177/0018578720910386