Meet the editor

Dr. Angelo Guttadauro is a researcher at the University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy, and first-level manager at the U.O.C. of General Surgery, Zucchi Clinical Institute, Monza. He is the founder and head of the "Hernia Center" of Monza-Brianza. He has participated in research projects of the Ministry of University and Scientific and technological research. In 2015, Dr. Guttadauro obtained an international patent for a prosthesis for

inguinal hernioplasty and standardized a new surgical technique for the application of the prosthesis. In 2017, he won the Innovation Grant award from the University of Milano-Bicocca. He is the author of ninety scientific publications, books, and abstracts in national and international journals and book chapters. He has presented his works in around 250 national and international congresses worldwide.

Contents

**Section 1**

**Section 2**

about Acute Appendicitis *by Angelo Guttadauro*

Management of Appendicitis

*and Jorge Escorcia Dominguez*

*and Theodoros Tablaridis*

Mimickers of Acute Appendicitis

*by Vishal P. Bhabhor*

*by Rossi Adu-Gyamfi*

*by Esam Amer*

**Preface XI**

**Foreword XIII**

Introduction **1**

**Chapter 1 3**

Acute Appendicitis: Doubts, Problems and Certainties **7**

**Chapter 2 9**

**Chapter 3 25**

**Chapter 4 35**

**Chapter 5 55**

**Chapter 6 65**

Introductory Chapter: Doubts, Problems, and Certainties

Faecoliths in Appendicitis: Does It Influence the Course and Treatment of the Disease in the Acute Setting?

Appendicitis in Children: Fundamentals and Particularities

Complicated Appendicitis: A Surgical Controversy Concerning Risk Factors, Diagnostic Algorithm and Therapeutic Management

*by Alin Villalobos Castillejos, Carlos Baeza Herrera, Miguel Alejandro Sánchez Durán, Jhonatan Mata Aranda, Miguel Ángel Minero Hibert, Ricardo Cortés García*

*by Athanasios Mekakas, Eleni-Aikaterini Nagorni*


**Author details**

Mayra-Alexandra Rengel Catholic University of Cuenca, Cuenca, Ecuador

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Data were collected from studies that reported at least average values or ranges for body weights of animals used, measured fractional passage rates and/or mean retention times in the reticulo-rumen. A dataset was created bearing passage rates from wild and domesticated ruminants. Factors that affect passage rates were identified in each of these studies and included animal and feed factors. Quantification of factors that affected passage rates are described in [144]. Process models developed as part of this study have been deposited into the Repository of Intelligent Models (REDIM) with accession number PRDA001762 and PRCN001814 for the estimation of solid and liquid passage rate, respectively, as indicated at http://www.redim.org.za/?search=PRDA001762 and http://www.redim.org.za/?search=

by sheep [138].

60 Goat Science

fed on green feed).

gazelles and ibex).

**4.2. Methodology**

PRCN001814.

After correcting for variation in 17 (liquid passage) and 23 (solid passage) factors that affect passage rates in the model, predicted solid and liquid passage rates for goats lay near the ideal prediction line and generally embedded with other ruminant feeding types (**Figures 2** and **3**).

This sparse distribution and entanglement of passage rates for goats within that of other ruminants strengthen the view that goats cannot be easily distinguished from other ruminants based on digesta passage rates; so, differences between goats and other ruminants are largely due to variation in diet quality.

**Figure 2.** Relationship between observed and predicted liquid passage rates for goats and other ruminant feeding types.

**Acknowledgements**

number: 87738).

**Author details**

**References**

1991;**116**:145-157

International; 2004

Mehluli Moyo and Ignatius V. Nsahlai\*

\*Address all correspondence to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
of Animal Science. 2007;**37**(4):275-289

of Animal Science. 1996;**74**(12):3063-3075

Germany: Ferdinand Enke Verlag; 1995. pp. 217-232

This work is part of a project funded by the National Research Foundation (NRF) of the Republic of South Africa (Project name: Intake of roughage by ruminant herbivores, GUN

Rate of Passage of Digesta in Ruminants; Are Goats Different?

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.69745

63

Animal and Poultry Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa

[1] Nsahlai IV, Apaloo J. On the suitability of the Illius and Gordon's model for simulating the intake and digestibility of roughage diets by ruminants. South African Journal

[2] Illius AW, Gordon IJ. Prediction ofintake and digestion in ruminants by a model ofrumen kinetics integrating animal size and plant characteristics. Journal of Agricultural Science.

[3] Clauss M, Deutsch A, Lechner-Doll M, Flach EJ, Tach C. Passage rate of fluid and particle phase in captive giraffe (*Giraffa camelopardalis*). Advances in Ethology. 1998;(33):98

[4] Clauss M, Lechner-Doll M. Differences in selective reticulo-ruminal particle retention

[5] Behrend A, Lechner-Doll M, Streich WJ, Clauss M. Seasonal faecal excretion, gut fill, liquid and particle marker retention in mouflon (*Ovis ammon musimon*), and a comparison

[6] Allen MS. Physical constraints on voluntary intake of forages by ruminants. Journal

[7] Forbes JM. Physical limitation of intake in ruminants and its interaction with other factors affecting feed intake. In: Engelhardt WV, Leonhard-Marek S, Breves G, editors. Ruminant Physiology: Digesta, Metabolism, Growth and Reproduction. Stuttgart,

[8] Fuller MF, Benavenga NJ, Lall SP, McCracken KJ, Omed HM, Axford RFE, Phillips CJC. The Encyclopaedia of Farm Animal Nutrition. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB

as a key factor in ruminant diversification. Oecologia. 2001;**129**(3):321-327

with roe deer (*Capreolus capreolus*). Acta Theriologica. 2004;**49**(4):503-515

**Figure 3.** Relationship between observed and predicted solid passage rates for goats and other ruminant feeding types.

#### **5. Summary**

Countless factors influence passage rates. Research has not considered effects of various combinations of factors on rates of passage of solid and fluid through the rumen. Mathematical models that seek to accurately predict passage rates, rumen fill levels and ultimately roughage intake should increase understanding of why part of the variation is not explained.

Animal and feed compositional attributes are the major factors to be included into passage rate prediction models. The role of animal physiology in influencing digesta passage rate is critical. Accounting for the influence of various physiological changes in ruminants, feeding level, stage of pregnancy and lactation, and growth in passage rate models can be done by computation of the feeding level based on total net energy requirements relative to net energy requirement for maintenance (animal production level, APL). It is evident that there are still discrepancies on how ambient temperature and particle density (buoyancy) affect the passage rate of digesta in the rumen. Indexing for buoyancy in solid passage rate, prediction models would likely involve determination of the extent of degradability of a particle taking into account the time available for digestion.

#### **6. Conclusion**

After correcting for variation in factors that affect solid and liquid passage rates, goats are not different from other ruminants with respect to passage rates suggesting differences between goats and other ruminants are largely due to dietary quality. More studies should be carried to ascertain the dynamics of digesta kinetics after meal termination in goats.