Both TPT and SEAL are safe and efficacious day-care procedures. In the ligation of average-sized IR of thin patients, working ports may not be necessary, as SEAL proves cosmetically and temporally efficacious over TPT. However, patients with wide rings and thick anterior abdominal walls may need the placement of working ports for successful laparoscopic repair.

Perianal block is a safe, feasible, reliable, and reproducible mode of anesthesia for ano-rectal surgeries. Its evident efficacy justifies its adoption as anesthesia of choice.

Objective To compare the outcome of suture mediated vascular closure device Perclose Proglide (PP) with manual compression (MC) following transfemoral access for coronary interventions (CI). Methods It is a retrospective, observational, single centre study from January 2018 to September 2019. Consecutive patients undergoing interventions through transfemoral access were divided into PP and MC groups. Those with less than 3 months follow up were excluded. Two groups were compared for baseline characteristics and various complications at 24 h and at 30 days. Results Out of 1743 patients studied, PP group included 1343 and MC group, 400 patients. Both groups were comparable in baseline characteristics, sheath size and use of antiplatelets and anticoagulation. PP group had significantly less minor bleeding (P = .01, CI 0.34–4.03) and hematoma (P = .0007, CI 0.95–5.10) at 24 h. At 30 days, minor bleeding (P < .0001, CI 0.97–4.25), hematoma (P = .0002, CI 1.05–4.93) and pseudo-aneurysm (P = .0095, CI 0.03–1.18) were also significantly less in PP group. Obesity (OR 3.5, CI 1.29–9.49) and hypertension (OR 2.41, CI 1.12–5.19) were associated with increased minor bleeding at 24 h. Device failure rate was 2.38%. Conclusions PP device is safe, effective and is associated with fewer complications than MC in CI. Device failure rate is low. Obesity and hypertension are associated with increased minor bleeding in both groups.

Introduction Infection of cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) may lead to serious complications. Complete CIED explantation is expensive, requires expertise, not free from complications, and may not be an option in patients with device dependence. Aim To highlight that carefully selected infected CIEDs can be salvaged by placing the device in a subpectoral pocket below the pectoralis major muscle. We conducted a retrospective descriptive observational study. Material and Methods Twelve patients (10 male and two female) with erosion, exposure or infection of infraclavicular, subcutaneously placed CIED were treated over a 30-month period between July 2018 and December 2020. The technique involved debridement and excision of a peridevice capsule, creating a subpectoral pocket beneath the pectoralis major muscle, and placing the CIED in a new pocket with total muscle coverage and closure of skin without tension. Results Twelve patients (m = 10; f = 2) with a mean age of 65 years (range, 46–82 years) presented with infection of CIED within 9 months of implantation. None had sepsis or endocarditis. In nine patients, CIEDs were successfully salvaged with relocation to subpectoral pocket. Mean follow-up was 20 months (range, 8–30 months). Three out of 12 developed reinfection that ultimately required CIED explantation. There was no mortality. Conclusion In the absence of sepsis or endocarditis, infected CIEDs may be attempted at salvage by subpectoral pocket placement. This obviates the need for potentially risky explantation or replacement of expensive CIEDs.