We read with great interest the editorial article by Meshikhes AWN published in issue 25 of World J Gastroenterol 2011. The article described the advantages of emergency laparoscopic appendectomy compared with interval appendectomy as a new safe treatment modality for the appendiceal mass. The author concluded that the emergency laparoscopic appendectomy was a safe treatment modality for the appendiceal mass, and might prove to be more cost-effective than conservative treatment, with no need for interval appendectomy. However, we would like to highlight certain issues regarding the possibility of percutaneous catheter drainage to successfully treat the appendiceal mass, with no need for appendectomy, too.

Background and Objectives: Currently, there is no consensus about immunosuppressive therapy following kidney transplantation. Acute rejection rates and allograft survival rates are the clinical outcomes traditionally used to compare the efficacy of various immunosuppressive regimens. Therefore, we conducted this study to evaluate whether patient survival rates improved in the era of modern immunosuppressive treatment during living-related kidney transplantation. Design and Setting: Retrospective cohort study in a university-based tertiary internal medicine teaching hospital performed between 1999 and 2009 and patients followed up to 7 years. Patients and Methods: Survival rates were assessed in 38 patients receiving basiliximab and mycophenolate mofetil (regimen A) and 32 patients receiving antithymocyte globulin and azathioprine (regimen B). The rest of the regimen (cyclosporine A and steroids) remained the same. A secondary end point was acute rejection episode. Results: Seven-year survival rates were 100% and 72% (P=.001) and 7-year acute rejection-free survival rates were 82% and 53% (P=.03), in groups A and B, respectively. Conclusion: Long-term survival after living-related kidney transplantation has improved in the era of modern immunosuppressive treatment.

We read with great interest the article by Vege et al published in issue 34 of World J Gastroenterol 2010. The article evaluates the ability of contrast-enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) to characterize the nature of peripancreatic collections found at surgery. The results of their study indicate that most of the peripancreatic collections seen on CECT in patients with severe acute pancreatitis who require operative intervention contain necrotic tissue and CECT has a limited role in differentiating various types of collections. However, there are some points that need to be addressed, including data about the stage of acute pancreatitis in which CECT was done and the time span between CECT examination and surgery.

We read with great interest the article by Tang et al published in issue 4 of World Journal of Gastroenterology 2010. The results of their study indicate that percutaneous catheter drainage in combination with choledochoscope-guided debridement is a simple, safe and reliable treatment procedure for peripancreatic infections secondary to severe acute pancreatitis. However, there are some points that need to be addressed, including data about the patients in the study and their clinical characteristics, data about infection and superinfection during the treatment and type of treatment of patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis.