METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data of all adult patients with intussusception admitted to our hospital between 2007 and 2017. The patients' characteristics, presentation, operation details, postoperative outcomes and pathology were analyzed. Comparisons were made between the laparoscopic and open surgery procedures performed during the study period.
RESULTS: Seventeen open and 20 laparoscopic-assisted resections were performed. No significant differences were found between the two groups for the following parameters: age (45.3 ± 16.8 vs. 54.9 ± 19.1, p = 0.160); gender (41 vs. 60% males, p = 0.330); American Society of Anesthesiologists score (p = 0.609); history of cardiovascular disease (5.9% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.950), COPD/asthma (0% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.950), diabetes (11.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.950), and renal impairment (5.9% vs. 0%, p = 0.486); body mass index (20.6 vs. 21.9, p = 0.433); timing of presentation (p = 1.000); type of intussusception (p = 0.658); type of procedures (p = 0.446); operative time (173.7 ± 45.4 vs. 191.5 ± 43.9, p = 0.329); and length of postoperative stay (6.7 ± 5.4 vs. 4.5 ± 1.1 days, p = 0.153). However, the open surgery group had fewer patients with hypertension (17.6% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.009) and demonstrated a delayed oral intake (4.0 ± 1.7 days vs. 2.5 ± 0.7 days, p = 0.010) and a higher comprehensive complication index (11.5 ± 27.1 vs. 0, p = 0.038).
CONCLUSIONS: The laparoscopic approach was associated with earlier oral intake and a lower comprehensive complication index. It is a safe and feasible technique that confers the advantages of minimally invasive surgery. It can be considered the preferred surgical option when the surgical expertise is available.
METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy following staging laparoscopy for UGI malignancies between January 2010 and July 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The data included patient demographics, operative technique and clinical outcomes.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients (11 males) had feeding jejunostomy done when staging laparoscopy showed unresectable UGI maligancy. Eight (53.3%) had gastric carcinoma, four (26.7%) had oesophageal carcinoma and three (20%) had cardio-oesophageal junction carcinoma. The mean age was 63.3 ± 7.3 years. Mean operative time was 66.0 ± 7.4 min. Mean postoperative stay was 5.6 ± 2.2 days. Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy was performed without intra-operative complications. There were no major complications requiring reoperation but four patients had excoriation at the T-tube site and three patients had tube dislodgement which required bedside replacement of the feeding tube. The mean duration of feeding tube was 127.3 ± 99.6 days.
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic feeding jejunostomy is an important adjunct to staging laparoscopy that can be performed safely with low morbidity. Meticulous attention to surgical techniques is the cornerstone of success.
Methods: A total of 150 CKD patients and 64 non-CKD patients were enrolled. The type 2 diabetic patients in the recruited study participants were categorised based on their glycaemic control; poor glycaemic control (GC) with haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) > 7% and good GC with HbA1c ≤ 7%. The levels or activities of GPx, SOD and sRAGE in plasma were measured. These biochemical parameters were analysed using Mann-WhitneyUtest and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Results: The activities of GPx and SOD as well as plasma level of sRAGE were not significantly different among the CKD patients with varying glycaemic control status. Irrespective of diabetes status and glycaemic control status, CKD patients also exhibited lower plasma SOD activities compared with non-CKD patients. Among the non-CKD patients, SOD activities were significantly higher in diabetic patients with good GC than diabetic patients with poor GC. Two-way ANOVA revealed that both CKD status and glycaemic control had an interaction effect on SOD activities in diabetic subjects with and without CKD. Follow-up analysis showed that SOD activities were significantly higher in non-CKD patients with good GC. There were no overall significant differences in GPx activities among the study participants. Furthermore, plasma sRAGE levels were higher in diabetic patients with CKD than those without CKD, regardless of glycaemic control status. There were no interaction effects between CKD status and glycaemic control status on GPx and sRAGE. Instead, CKD status showed significant main effects on these parameters, indicating significant differences between diabetic subjects with CKD and diabetic subjects without CKD.
Conclusion: Glycaemic control did not quantitatively alter GPx, SOD and sRAGE in diabetic CKD patients. Despite the advantages of good glycaemic control, a well-controlled diabetes in CKD did not modulate the activities of enzymatic antioxidants and sRAGE levels, therefore may not be the primary mechanism to handle oxidative stress.
METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic or open repair for PPU between December 2010 and February 2014.
RESULTS: A total of 131 patients underwent emergency repair for PPU (laparoscopic repair, n=63, 48.1% vs. open repair, n=68, 51.9%). There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between both groups in terms of age (p=0.434), gender (p=0.305), body mass index (p=0.180), and presence of comorbidities (p=0.214). Both groups were also comparable in their American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (p=0.769), Boey scores 0/1 (p=0.311), Mannheim Peritonitis Index > 27 (p=0.528), shock on admission (p<0.99), and the duration of symptoms > 24 hours (p=0.857). There was no significant difference in the operating time between the two groups (p=0.618). Overall, the laparoscopic group had fewer complications compared with the open group (14.3% vs. 36.8%, p=0.005). When reviewing specific complications, only the incidence of surgical site infection was statistically significant (laparoscopic 0.0% vs. open 13.2%, p=0.003). The other parameters were not statistically significant. The laparoscopic group did have a significantly shorter mean postoperative stay (p=0.008) and lower pain scores in the immediate postoperative period (p<0.05). Mortality was similar in both groups (open, 1.6% vs. laparoscopic, 2.9%, p < 0.99).
CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic repair resulted in reduced wound infection rates, shorter hospitalization, and reduced postoperative pain. Our single institution series and standardized technique demonstrated lower morbidity rates in the laparoscopic group.