Prevention and treatment of bile duct injuries during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

Background

Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures in Europe (and the world) and has become the standard procedure for the management of symptomatic cholelithiasis or acute cholecystitis in patients without specific contraindications. Bile duct injuries (BDI) are rare but serious complications that can occur during a laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Prevention and management of BDI has given rise to a host of publications but very few recommendations, especially in Europe.

Methods

A systematic research of the literature was performed. An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. Statements and recommendations were drafted after a consensus development conference in May 2011, followed by presentation and discussion at the annual congress of the EAES held in Torino in June 2011. Finally, full guidelines were consented and adopted by the expert panel via e-mail and web conference.

Results

A total of 1,765 publications were identified through the systematic literature search and additional submission by panellists; 671 publications were selected as potentially relevant. Only 46 publications fulfilled minimal methodological criteria to support Clinical Practice Guidelines recommendations. Because the level of evidence was low for most of the studies, most statements or recommendations had to be based on consensus of opinion among the panel members. A total of 15 statements and recommendations were developed covering the following topics: classification of injuries, epidemiology, prevention, diagnosis, and management of BDI.

Conclusions

Because BDI is a rare event, it is difficult to generate evidence for prevention, diagnosis, or the management of BDI from clinical studies. Nevertheless, the panel has formulated recommendations. Due to the currently limited evidence, a European registry should be considered to collect and analyze more valid data on BDI upon which recommendations can be based.     

国际胃袖状切除专家共识：基于〉12000手术病例的最佳操作指南

腹腔镜胃袖状切除术（1aparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy,LSG）系相对较新的减重手术方式。因其操作相对简单、治疗肥胖合并疾病及减重效果明显,逐步得以广泛接受。目前美国代谢与减重手术协会将其推荐为肥胖症治疗的单独标准术式。2011年3月25～26日,     

International Sleeve Gastrectomy Expert Panel Consensus Statement: best practice guidelines based on experience of >12,000 cases

BackgroundLaparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is an emerging surgical approach, but 1 that has seen a surge in popularity because of its perceived technical simplicity, feasibility, and good outcomes. An international expert panel was convened in Coral Gables, Florida on March 25 and 26, 2011, with the purpose of providing best practice guidelines through consensus regarding the performance of LSG. The panel comprised 24 centers and represented 11 countries, spanning all major regions of the world and all 6 populated continents, with a collective experience of >12,000 cases. It was thought prudent to hold an expert consensus meeting of some of the surgeons across the globe who have performed the largest volume of cases to discuss and provide consensus on the indications, contraindications, and procedural aspects of LSG. The panel undertook this consensus effort to help the surgical community improve the efficacy, lower the complication rates, and move toward adoption of standardized techniques and measures. The meeting took place at on-site meeting facilities, Biltmore Hotel, Coral Gables, Florida.MethodsExpert panelists were invited to participate according to their publications, knowledge and experience, and identification as surgeons who had performed >500 cases. The topics for consensus encompassed patient selection, contraindications, surgical technique, and the prevention and management of complications. The responses were calculated and defined as achieving consensus (≥70% agreement) or no consensus (<70% agreement).ResultsFull consensus was obtained for the essential aspects of the indications and contraindications, surgical technique, management, and prevention of complications. Consensus was achieved for 69 key questions.ConclusionThe present consensus report represents the best practice guidelines for the performance of LSG, with recommendations in the 3 aforementioned areas. This report and its findings support a first effort toward the standardization of techniques and adoption of working recommendations formulated according to expert experience.     

Consensus guidelines for the identification and treatment of biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds

Background: Despite a growing consensus that biofilms contribute to a delay in the healing of chronic wounds, conflicting evidence pertaining to their identification and management can lead to uncertainty regarding treatment. This, in part, has been driven by reliance on in vitro data or animal models, which may not directly correlate to clinical evidence on the importance of biofilms. Limited data presented in human studies have further contributed to the uncertainty. Guidelines for care of chronic wounds with a focus on biofilms are needed to help aid the identification and management of biofilms, providing a clinical focus to support clinicians in improving patient care through evidence‐based medicine. Methods: A Global Wound Biofilm Expert Panel, comprising 10 clinicians and researchers with expertise in laboratory and clinical aspects of biofilms, was identified and convened. A modified Delphi process, based on published scientific data and expert opinion, was used to develop consensus statements that could help identify and treat biofilms as part of the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Using an electronic survey, panel members rated their agreement with statements about biofilm identification and treatment, and the management of chronic nonhealing wounds. Final consensus statements were agreed on in a face‐to‐face meeting. Results: Participants reached consensus on 61 statements in the following topic areas: understanding biofilms and the problems they cause clinicians; current diagnostic options; clinical indicators of biofilms; future options for diagnostic tests; treatment strategies; mechanical debridement; topical antiseptics; screening antibiofilm agents; and levels of evidence when choosing antibiofilm treatments. Conclusion: This consensus document attempts to clarify misunderstandings about the role of biofilms in clinical practice, and provides a basis for clinicians to recognize biofilms in chronic nonhealing wounds and manage patients optimally. A new paradigm for wound care, based on a stepped‐down treatment approach, was derived from the consensus statements.     

Reoperative surgery for nonresponders and complicated sleeve gastrectomy operations in patients with severe obesity. An international expert panel consensus statement to define best practice guidelines

Background

Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has rapidly become the most commonly performed bariatric procedure in the United States as well as other countries, with approximately 120,000 procedures being performed annually in the United States. Reoperative interventions after SG have become more prevalent in the past few years since the initial development of SG as a primary operation. Given the expected rapid growth of these reinterventions, an expert consensus conference was held with some of the most experienced bariatric surgeons in the world to better understand, discuss, and provide consensus on the reasons, indications, contraindications, and surgical options for nonresponders and complicated SG operations.

External Assessment of the GEMA2009 Recommendations by a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel on Asthma

ObjectivesTo assess the level of agreement on the GEMA 2009 clinical recommendations by a Spanish expert panel on asthma.Materials and methodsThe study was divided into four stages: 1) establishment of a 9 member scientific committee (GEMA authors) for selection of GEMA recommendations to use in the survey; 2) formation of a panel of 74 professionals with expertise in this field (pulmonologists, allergists, family doctors, ear, nose and throat and paediatric specialists); 3) Delphi survey in two rounds, sent by mail, with intermediate processing of opinions and a report to the panel members; and 4) analysis and discussion of results for the Scientific Committee.ResultsSeventy four participants completed the two rounds of survey. During the first round, a consensus was reached in 49 out of 56 questions analysed. Following discussion by the panel, the consensus was increased to a total of 53 items in the survey. With respect to the remaining questions, Insufficient consensus was obtained on the rest of the questions, due to differing views between sub-specialists, or lack of criteria by most of the experts.ConclusionsThe external analysis by asthma experts from different specialities showed a high level of professional agreement with the GEMA 2009 recommendations in Spain (96.5 %). The disagreement shown in three recommendations reflect the lack of a high level evidence. These issues represent areas of interest for future research.     

Italian recommendations on enzymatic debridement in burn surgery

IntroductionNexobrid®, a bromelain-based type of enzymatic debridement, has become more prevalent in recent years. We present the recommendations on enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid®)’s role based on the practice knowledge of expert Italian users.MethodsThe Italian recommendations, endorsed by SIUST (Italian Society of Burn Surgery), on using enzymatic debridement to remove eschars for burn treatment were defined. The definition followed a process to evaluate the level of agreement (a measure of consensus) among selected experts, representing Italian burn centers, concerning defined clinical aspects of enzymatic debridement. The consensus involved a multi-phase process based on the Delphi method.ResultsThe consensus panel included experts from Italy with a combined experience of 1068 burn patients treated with enzymatic debridement. At the end of round 3 of the Delphi method, the panel reached 100% consensus on 26 out of 27 statements. The panel achieved full, strong consensus (all respondents strongly agreed on the statement) on 24 out of 27 statements.DiscussionThe statements provided by the Italian consensus panel represent a “ready to use” set of recommendations for enzymatic debridement in burn surgery that both draw from and complete the existing scientific literature on the topic. These recommendations are specific to the Italian experience and are neither static nor definitive. As such, they will be updated periodically as further quality evidence becomes available.     

Eschar removal by bromelain based enzymatic debridement (Nexobrid®) in burns: European consensus guidelines update

IntroductionBromelain-based Enzymatic Debridement has been introduced as an additional concept to the burn surgeon's armamentarium and is best indicated for mid-to deep dermal burns with mixed patterns. Increasing evidence has been published focusing on special regions and settings as well as on limitations of Enzymatic Debridement to improve patient care. To better guide Enzymatic Debridement in view of the increasing experience, there is a need to update the formerly published consensus guidelines with user-orientated recommendations, which were last produced in 2017.MethodsA multi-professional expert panel of plastic surgeons and burn care specialists from twelve European centers was convened, to assist in developing current recommendations for best practices with use of Enzymatic Debridement. Consensus statements were based on peer-reviewed publications and clinical relevance, and topics for re-evaluation and refinement were derived from the formerly published European guidelines. For consensus agreement, the methodology employed was an agreement algorithm based on a modification of the Willy and Stellar method. For this study on Enzymatic Debridement, consensus was considered when there was at least 80 % agreement to each statement.ResultsThe updated consensus guidelines from 2019 refer to the clinical experience and practice patterns of 1232 summarized patient cases treated by the panelists with ED in Europe (2017: 500 cases), reflecting the impact of the published recommendations. Forty-three statements were formulated, addressing the following topics: indications, pain management and anesthesia, large surface treatment, timing of application for various indications, preparation and application, post-interventional wound management, skin grafting, outcome, scar and revision management, cost-effectiveness, patient´s perspective, logistic aspects and training strategies. The degree of consensus was remarkably high, with consensus in 42 out of 43 statements (97.7%). A classification with regard to timing of application for Enzymatic Debridement was introduced, discriminating immediate/very early (≤12 h), early (12−72 h) or delayed (>72 h) treatment. All further recommendations are addressed in the publication.ConclusionsThe updated guidelines in this publication represent further refinement of the recommended indication, application and post-interventional management for the use of ED. The published statements contain detailed, user-orientated recommendations aiming to align current and future users and prevent pitfalls, e.g. for the successful implementation of ED in further countries like the USA. The significance of this work is reflected by the magnitude of patient experience behind it, larger than the total number of patients treated in all published ED clinical trials.     

The American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS) 2022 Expert Consensus Document: The use of mechanical circulatory support in lung transplantation

ObjectiveThe use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in lung transplantation has been steadily increasing over the prior decade, with evolving strategies for incorporating support in the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative settings. There is significant practice variability in the use of these techniques, however, and relatively limited data to help establish institutional protocols. The objective of the AATS Clinical Practice Standards Committee (CPSC) expert panel was to review the existing literature and establish recommendations about the use of MCS before, during, and after lung transplantation.MethodsThe AATS CPSC assembled an expert panel of 16 lung transplantation physicians who developed a consensus document of recommendations. The panel was broken into subgroups focused on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative support, and each subgroup performed a focused literature review. These subgroups formulated recommendation statements for each subtopic, which were evaluated by the entire group. The statements were then developed via discussion among the panel and refined until consensus was achieved on each statement.ResultsThe expert panel achieved consensus on 36 recommendations for how and when to use MCS in lung transplantation. These recommendations included the use of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a bridging strategy in the preoperative setting, a preference for central veno-arterial ECMO over traditional cardiopulmonary bypass during the transplantation procedure, and the benefit of supporting selected patients with MCS postoperatively.ConclusionsAchieving optimal results in lung transplantation requires the use of a wide range of strategies. MCS provides an important mechanism for helping these critically ill patients through the peritransplantation period. Despite the complex nature of the decision making process in the treatment of these patients, the expert panel was able to achieve consensus on 36 recommendations. These recommendations should provide guidance for professionals involved in the care of end-stage lung disease patients considered for transplantation.     

EAU-ESMO Consensus Statements on the Management of Advanced and Variant Bladder Cancer—An International Collaborative Multistakeholder Effort2: Under the Auspices of the EAU-ESMO Guidelines Committees

BackgroundAlthough guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.ObjectiveTo bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.DesignA steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.SettingOnline Delphi survey and consensus conference.ParticipantsThe European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysisStatements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1–3 (disagree), 4–6 (equivocal), and 7–9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement and ≤15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitationsOverall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.ConclusionsThese consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summaryThis report summarises findings from an international, multistakeholder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available.     

Building consensus on inpatient discharge pathway components in the management of blunt thoracic injuries: An e-Delphi study amongst an international professional expert panel

IntroductionAccess to a standardised and evidence informed approach to blunt thoracic injury (BTI) management remains challenging across organised trauma systems globally. It remains important to optimise recovery through pathway-based interventions. The aim of this study was to identify components of care that are important in the effective discharge process for patients with BTI and pinpoint core and optional components for a patient pathway-based intervention.MethodsComponents of care within the hospital discharge process after BTI were identified using existing literature and expert opinion. These initial data were entered into a three-round e-Delphi consensus method where round one involved further integrating and categorising components of discharge care from the expert panel. The panel comprised of an international interdisciplinary group of healthcare professionals with experience in the management of BTI. All questionnaires were completed anonymously using an online survey and involved rating care components using Likert scales (Range: 1-6). The final consensus threshold for pathway components were defined as a group rating of greater than 70% scoring in either the moderate importance (3-4) or high importance category (5-6) and less than 15% of the panel scoring within the low importance category (1-2).ResultsOf 88 recruited participants, 67 (76%) participated in round one. Statements were categorised into nine themes: (i) Discharge criteria; (ii) Physical function and Self-care; (iii) Pain management components; (iv) Respiratory function components; (v) General care components; (vi) Follow-up; (vii) Psychological care components; (viii) Patient, family and communication; (ix) ‘Red Flag’ signs and symptoms. Overall, 70 statements were introduced into the consensus building exercise in round two. In round three, 40 statements from across these categorises achieved consensus amongst the expert panel, forming a framework of core and optional care components within the discharge process after BTI.ConclusionsThese data will be used to build a toolkit containing guidance on developing discharge pathways for patients with BTI and for the development of audit benchmarks for analysing healthcare provision in this area. It is important that interventions developed using this framework are validated locally and evaluated for efficacy using appropriate research methodology.     

American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery consensus statement on laparoscopic adjustable gastric band management

BackgroundLaparoscopic adjustable gastric band (LAGB) management continues to be an important part of many metabolic and bariatric surgery practices.ObjectivesTo replace the existing American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) LAGB adjustment credentialing guidelines for physician extenders with consensus statements that reflect the current state of LAGB management.SettingASMBS Integrated Health Clinical Issues Committee.MethodsA modified Delphi process using a 2-stage consensus approach was conducted on LAGB management. Thirty-four consensus statements were developed following a literature search on a wide range of LAGB topics. A 5-point Likert scale was implemented to measure consensus agreement with a Delphi panel of 39 expert participants who were invited and agreed to participate in 2 rounds of Delphi questionnaires. Consensus was set a priori at 75% agreement, defined as the proportion of participants responding with agreement (i.e., 4 or 5) or disagreement (i.e., 1 or 2) on the Likert scale.ResultsConsensus was reached on 74% (25 of 34) of the LAGB management statements. In Delphi round 1, 95% (37 of 39) of the participants responded to 34 consensus statements; 21 of the statements (62%) met the 75% criteria for consensus. Thirty-one participants (80%) responded in round 2, shifting the agreement on 4 more statements to the 75% threshold.ConclusionThe ASMBS consensus statement on LAGB management is intended to guide practice with current evidence-based knowledge and professional experience. The ASMBS is not a credentialing body and does not seek to guide credentialing with this document.     

Laparoscopic extraperitoneal rectal cancer surgery: the clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES)

Background

The laparoscopic approach is increasingly applied in colorectal surgery. Although laparoscopic surgery in colon cancer has been proved to be safe and feasible with equivalent long-term oncological outcome compared to open surgery, safety and long-term oncological outcome of laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer remain controversial. Laparoscopic rectal cancer surgery might be efficacious, but indications and limitations are not clearly defined. Therefore, the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has developed this clinical practice guideline.

Methods

An international expert panel was invited to appraise the current literature and to develop evidence-based recommendations. The expert panel constituted for a consensus development conference in May 2010. Thereafter, the recommendations were presented at the annual congress of the EAES in Geneva in June 2010 in a plenary session. A second consensus process (Delphi process) of the recommendations with the explanatory text was necessary due to the changes after the consensus conference.

Results

Laparoscopic surgery for extraperitoneal (mid- and low-) rectal cancer is feasible and widely accepted. The laparoscopic approach must offer the same quality of surgical specimen as in open surgery. Short-term outcomes such as bowel function, surgical-site infections, pain and hospital stay are slightly improved with the laparoscopic approach. Laparoscopic resection of rectal cancer is not inferior to the open in terms of disease-free survival, overall survival or local recurrence. Laparoscopic pelvic dissection may impair genitourinary and sexual function after rectal resection, like in open surgery.

Conclusions

Laparoscopic surgery for mid- and low-rectal cancer can be recommended under optimal conditions. Still, most level 1 evidence is for colon cancer surgery rather than rectal cancer. Upcoming results from large randomised trials are awaited to strengthen the evidence for improved short-term results and equal long-term results in comparison with the open approach.     

医院参与全员新冠病毒核酸检测样本采集管理专家共识

目的 形成《医院参与新冠病毒核酸检测样本采集管理专家共识》,规范采样管理.方法 在查阅国内外文献,依据相关政策的基础上,综合参与采样工作的操作实践及相关专家意见建议,撰写共识初稿,并通过会议讨论及函询征求专家意见,对共识稿进行修改,形成终版共识稿.结果 专家就采样前准备,采样点、采样台设置及采样人员配置,采样操作管理,...     

Evidence-based recommendations for the use of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in traumatic wounds and reconstructive surgery: steps towards an international consensus

Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) has become widely adopted over the last 15 years and over 1000 peer reviewed publications are available describing its use. Despite this, there remains uncertainty regarding several aspects of usage. In order to respond to this gap a global expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations describing the use of NPWT. In this paper the results of the study of evidence in traumatic wounds (including soft tissue defects, open fractures and burns) and reconstructive procedures (including flaps and grafts) are reported. Evidence-based recommendations were obtained by a systematic review of the literature, grading of evidence, drafting of the recommendations by a global expert panel, followed by a formal consultative consensus development program in which 422 independent healthcare professionals were able to agree or disagree with the recommendations. The criteria for agreement were set at 80% approval. Evidence and recommendations were graded according to the SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) classification system. Twelve recommendations were developed in total; 4 for soft tissue trauma and open fracture injuries, 1 for burn injuries, 3 for flaps and 4 for skin grafts. The present evidence base is strongest for the use of NPWT on skin grafts and weakest as a primary treatment for burns. In the consultative process, 11/12 of the proposed recommendations reached the 80% agreement threshold. The development of evidence-based recommendations for NPWT with direct validation from a large group of practicing clinicians offers a broader basis for consensus than work by an expert panel alone.     

Consensus guidelines for validation of virtual reality surgical simulators

The Work Group for Evaluation and Implementation of Simulators and Skills Training Programmes is a newly formed sub-group of the European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES). This work group undertook a review of validation evidence for surgical simulators and the resulting consensus is presented in this article. Using clinical guidelines criteria, the evidence for validation for six different simulators was rated and subsequently translated to a level of recommendation for each system. The simulators could be divided into two basic types; systems for laparoscopic general surgery and flexible gastrointestinal endoscopy. Selection of simulators for inclusion in this consensus was based on their availability and relatively widespread usage as of July 2004. Whilst level 2 recommendations were achieved for a few systems, it was clear that there was an overall lack of published validation studies with rigorous experimental methodology. Since the consensus meeting, there have been a number of new articles, system upgrades and new devices available. The work group intends to update these consensus guidelines on a regular basis, with the resulting article available on the EAES website ( ). Sponsored by the EAES Work Group for Evaluation and Implementation of Simulators and Skills Training Programmes, residing under the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery     

European Consensus Meeting on Foam Sclerotherapy, April, 4-6, 2003, Tegernsee, Germany.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of sclerotherapy using foam sclerosants has revitalized interest in this method of treating varicose veins. Foam is made from detergent-type sclerosants already established as safe and effective in conventional liquid sclerotherapy. OBJECTIVE: European experts in foam sclerotherapy were invited to exchange their opinions and to work on consensus statements and recommendations. METHODS: A questionnaire covering different areas of foam sclerotherapy was sent to experts who have published or presented data, participated in clinical trials, or otherwise contributed to sclerotherapy with extemporary (self-made) foam. Based on the answers, several consensus statements and recommendations were approved during the consensus meeting. RESULTS: The use of sclerosing foam is an appropriate procedure in the treatment of varicose veins. It is a powerful tool in the hands of an expert who has sufficient experience in sclerotherapy. Sclerosing foam is more powerful than liquid. Most recommendations for conventional liquid sclerotherapy also apply to foam sclerotherapy. Some differences between these two treatments were highlighted. CONCLUSION: Foam sclerotherapy is a variation of a well-established treatment that improves varicose vein management. European experts came together to harmonize their opinions about sclerosing foam. The final document reflects the experts' opinion with the aim of defining principles for a safe and effective use of sclerosing foam and for its practical application. Foam sclerotherapy allows a skilled practitioner to treat larger veins including saphenous trunks.     

Imaging for the diagnosis and follow-up of ankylosing spondylitis: development of recommendations for clinical practice based on published evidence and expert opinion

ObjectiveTo develop recommendations regarding imaging studies for the diagnosis and follow-up of patients with axial forms of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) seen in everyday practice.MethodsEvidence from the literature and expert opinion were used to develop the recommendations. Using the Delphi consensus procedure, a scientific committee selected five areas of interest, about which scientific evidence was sought by searching Medline and the databases maintained by the French Society for Rheumatology, European League against Rheumatism, and American College of Rheumatology. Based on this evidence, a panel of experienced rheumatologists drafted recommendations, using expert opinion if needed to supplement gaps in evidence. For each recommendation, the level of evidence and the extent of agreement among the experts were specified.ResultsThe five areas of interest dealt with the usefulness of imaging studies for the diagnosis, follow-up, prognostic evaluation, and assessment of treatment responses in patients with AS. The literature search retrieved 144 articles based on titles and abstracts. After elimination of articles that did not include an analysis of the radiological evaluation of AS, 73 articles were left for review. Eight recommendations were drafted then validated by having all panel participants vote during a final meeting.ConclusionEight recommendations about the use of imaging studies in patients with AS were developed. They can be expected to improve clinical practice uniformity and, in the longer term, to optimize the management of patients with AS.     

European Consensus Meeting on Foam Sclerotherapy, April, 4–6, 2003, Tegernsee, Germany

Background. The introduction of sclerotherapy using foam sclerosants has revitalized interest in this method of treating varicose veins. Foam is made from detergent-type sclerosants already established as safe and effective in conventional liquid sclerotherapy.
Objective. European experts in foam sclerotherapy were invited to exchange their opinions and to work on consensus statements and recommendations.
Methods. A questionnaire covering different areas of foam sclerotherapy was sent to experts who have published or presented data, participated in clinical trials, or otherwise contributed to sclerotherapy with extemporary (self-made) foam. Based on the answers, several consensus statements and recommendations were approved during the consensus meeting.
Results. The use of sclerosing foam is an appropriate procedure in the treatment of varicose veins. It is a powerful tool in the hands of an expert who has sufficient experience in sclerotherapy. Sclerosing foam is more powerful than liquid. Most recommendations for conventional liquid sclerotherapy also apply to foam sclerotherapy. Some differences between these two treatments were highlighted.
Conclusion. Foam sclerotherapy is a variation of a well-established treatment that improves varicose vein management. European experts came together to harmonize their opinions about sclerosing foam. The final document reflects the experts' opinion with the aim of defining principles for a safe and effective use of sclerosing foam and for its practical application. Foam sclerotherapy allows a skilled practitioner to treat larger veins including saphenous trunks.     

EAES recommendations for the management of gastroesophageal reflux disease

Background

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most frequent benign disorders of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Management of GERD has always been controversial since modern medical therapy is very effective, but laparoscopic fundoplication is one of the few procedures that were quickly adapted to the minimal access technique. The purpose of this project was to analyze the current knowledge on GERD in regard to its pathophysiology, diagnostic assessment, medical therapy, and surgical therapy, and special circumstances such as GERD in children, Barrett’s esophagus, and enteroesophageal and duodenogastroesophageal reflux.

Methods

The European Association of Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) has tasked a group of experts, based on their clinical and scientific expertise in the field of GERD, to establish current guidelines in a consensus development conference. The expert panel was constituted in May 2012 and met in September 2012 and January 2013, followed by a Delphi process. Critical appraisal of the literature was accomplished. All articles were reviewed and classified according to the hierarchy of level of evidence and summarized in statements and recommendations, which were presented to the scientific community during the EAES yearly conference in a plenary session in Vienna 2013. A second Delphi process followed discussion in the plenary session.

Results

Recommendations for pathophysiologic and epidemiologic considerations, symptom evaluation, diagnostic workup, medical therapy, and surgical therapy are presented. Diagnostic evaluation and adequate selection of patients are the most important features for success of the current management of GERD. Laparoscopic fundoplication is the most important therapeutic technique for the success of surgical therapy of GERD.

Conclusions

Since the background of GERD is multifactorial, the management of this disease requires a complex approach in diagnostic workup as well as for medical and surgical treatment. Laparoscopic fundoplication in well-selected patients is a successful therapeutic option.