Introduction Several studies and meta-analysis showed Single-port or Single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SPL) to be superior over Multiport laparoscopic surgery (MPL) mainly in terms of postoperative pain and cosmetic result. But very little is known whether these results are only a short-term effect or are persistent on the long run after SPL. We therefore evaluated and compared long-term outcomes regarding cosmesis and chronic pain after SPL and MPL. Methods We conducted a comparative study with propensity score matching of all patients undergoing SPL or MPL between October 2008 and December 2013 in terms of postoperative cosmetic results and chronic pain. Follow-up data were obtained from mailed patient questionnaires and telephone interviews. Postoperative cosmesis was assessed using the patients overall scar opinion on a 10-point scale and the Patients scale of the standardized Patient and Observer Scar assessment scale (POSAS). Chronic pain was assessed by 10-point scales for abdominal and umbilical scar pain. Results A total of 280 patients were included in the study with 188 patients (67.1%) after SPL and 92 patients (32.9%) following MPL. 141 patients (50.4%) underwent a cholecystectomy and 139 patients (49.6%) underwent an appendectomy. The mean follow-up time was 61.1 ± 19.1 months. The mean wound satisfaction assed by the overall scar and the PSOAS Patients scale score of the patients showed no significant difference between MPL and SPL. Patients after SPL reported more overall complains than after MPL (8.7% vs. 2.5%, respectively), but without statistical significance (p = 0.321). Umbilical pain scores were comparable between the two groups (1.4 ± 1.0 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0, p = 0.831). Conclusion We found no difference in long-term cosmetic outcomes after SPL and MPL. Chronic pain at the umbilical incision site was comparable on the long run.
Background Tumor-associated neutrophils (TANs) have recently been identified as a relevant component of the tumor microenvironment (TME) in solid tumors. Within the TME TANs mediate either tumor-promoting or tumor-inhibiting activities. So far, their prognostic relevance remains to be determined. This study aims to evaluate the prognostic relevance of TANs in different molecular subtypes of gastric and esophageal adenocarcinoma. Methods We analyzed a total of 1118 Caucasian patients divided into gastric adenocarcinoma (n = 458) and esophageal adenocarcinoma cohort (n = 660) of primarily resected and neoadjuvant-treated individuals. The amount of CD66b + TANs in the tumor stroma was determined using quantitative image analysis and correlated to both molecular, as well as clinical data. Results An accumulation of TANs in the tumor stroma of gastric carcinomas was associated to a significant favorable prognosis (p = 0.026). A subgroup analysis showed that this effect was primarily related to the molecular chromosomal instable subtype (CIN) of gastric carcinomas (p = 0.010). This was only observed in female patients (p = 0.014) but not in male patients (p = 0.315). The same sex-specific effect could be confirmed in adenocarcinomas of the esophagus (p = 0.027), as well as in female individuals after receiving neoadjuvant therapy (p = 0.034). Conclusions Together, we show a sex-specific prognostic effect of TANs in gastric cancer within a Caucasian cohort. For the first time, we showed that this sex-specific prognostic effect of TANs can also be seen in esophageal cancer.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.