Purpose To compare the results of laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP), excisional hemorrhoidectomy (EH), and sutured mucopexy (MP). Methods A randomized, parallel-group, double-blinded, single-center prospective study. Patients Symptomatic 2nd-or 3rd-degree hemorrhoids patients. Interventions Computer randomization sequence, patient blinding, operating surgeon blinding, and surgeon-evaluator blinding. LHP was performed using a 1470 nm diode laser. Up to 250 J of energy delivered per 1 hemorrhoid. The procedure was performed circumferentially. MP ligations were placed in the area of visible hemorrhoidal tissue. Standard EH was performed up to the level of the hemorrhoidal pedicle. Follow-up at 1 and 6 weeks and 1 year. Outcome measures Recurrence of symptoms requiring treatment, intensity, and duration of pain after the operation, patients' quality of life, fecal incontinence, and patients' evaluation of treatment. Results A total of 121 patients. Groups were even preoperatively. LHP took 15 min (SD 5.6), MP took 16 min (SD 5.58), and EH took 29 min (SD 10.3). Recurrence requiring treatment rate was 0% after EH, 10% after LHP, and 22% after MP, p = 0.004. LHP and MP were less painful than EH, p < 0.001. Patients after LHP returned to regular activity after 15 days, after MP after 22 days, and after EH after 30 days, p < 0.001. SF-36 scores were better after EH. Symptoms of fecal incontinence improved in all the groups. Patients evaluate LHP better than EH and MP. Limitations Single-center study. Conclusions Laser hemorrhoidoplasty is a safe, minimally invasive option for hemorrhoids, more effective than MP and less effective than EH. Patients evaluate this technique better than the other two.

Background: Anastomotic leakage (AL) significantly impairs short-term outcomes. The impact on the long-term outcomes remains unclear. This study aimed to identify the risk factors for AL and the impact on long-term survival in patients with left-sided colorectal cancer. Methods: Nine-hundred patients with left-sided colorectal carcinoma who underwent sigmoid or rectal resection were enrolled in the study. Risk factors for AL after sigmoid or rectal resection were identified, and long-term outcomes of patients with and without AL were compared. Results: AL rates following sigmoid and rectal resection were 5.1% and 10.7%, respectively. Higher ASA score (III-IV; OR = 10.54, p = 0.007) was associated with AL in patients undergoing sigmoid surgery on multivariable analysis. Male sex (OR = 2.40, p = 0.004), CCI score > 5 (OR = 1.72, p = 0.025), and T3/T4 stage tumors (OR = 2.25, p = 0.017) were risk factors for AL after rectal resection on multivariable analysis. AL impaired disease-free and overall survival in patients undergoing sigmoid (p = 0.009 and p = 0.001) and rectal (p = 0.003 and p = 0.014) surgery. Conclusion: ASA score of III-IV is an independent risk factor for AL after sigmoid surgery, and male sex, higher CCI score, and advanced T stage are risk factors for AL after rectal surgery. AL impairs the long-term survival in patients undergoing left-sided colorectal surgery.

Background: Closure of a loop ileostomy is a relatively simple procedure although many studies have demonstrated high morbidity rates following it. Methods to reduce the number of complications, such as timing of closure or different surgical closure techniques, are investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the experience of the Abdominal Surgery Center at Vilnius University Hospital (VUH) ‘Santariskiu klinikos' to review the complications after closure of loop ileostomy and to identify potential risk factors for postoperative complications. Methods: Data from 132 patients who underwent closure of loop ileostomy from 2003 to 2013 at the Abdominal Surgery Center of VUH were collected, including demographics, causes of ileostomy formation, additional diseases, time from creation to closure of ileostomy, anastomotic technique, duration of the operation, postoperative complications, and hospital stay after surgery. The operations were performed by 15 surgeons with varying experience assisted by surgical residents. Experience in ileostomy closure was defined by the number of procedures performed. Results: Complications occurred in 24 patients (18.2%), with 20 of them having surgical complications: bowel obstruction (9 (6.8%)), wound infection (4 (3.0%)), peritonitis due to anastomotic leak (3 (2.3%)), intra-abdominal abscess (2 (1.5%)), anastomotic leak with enterocutaneous fistula (1 (0.76%)), and bleeding (1 (0.76%)). 4 patients had non-surgical complications: postoperative diarrhea (2 (1.5%)), urinary retention (1 (0.76%)), and deep vein thrombosis (1 (0.76%)). Most complications were classified as group II according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. 2 patients died (1.5%). The anastomotic technique used did not affect the outcome. The experience of the surgeon as judged by the frequency of the procedure was the main factor affecting postoperative morbidity significantly (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Our study revealed that the rate of postoperative complications and a smooth postoperative course after the closure of ileostomy was influenced by surgical experience.

AbstractObjectiveThe optimal diagnostics and treatment of acute appendicitis continues to be a challenge. A false positive diagnosis of appendicitis may lead to an unnecessary operation, which has been appropriately termed negative appendectomy. The aim of our study was to identify the effectiveness of preoperative investigations in preventing negative appendectomy.MethodsA retrospective study was performed on adult patients who underwent operation for suspected acute appendicitis from 2008 to 2013 at Vilnius University Hospital Santariskiu Klinikos. Patients were divided into two groups: group A underwent an operation, where appendix was found to be normal (non-inflamed); group B underwent an appendectomy for inflamed appendix. Groups were compared for preoperative data, investigations, treatment results and pathology findings.Results554 patients were included in the study. Preoperative laboratory tests results of hemoglobin, hematocrit concentrations and white blood cell count were significantly higher in group B (p<0.001). Ultrasonography was performed for 78 % of patients in group A and 74 % in group B and did not provide any statistically significant results. Comparing Alvarado score results, there were more patients with Alvarado score less than 7 in group A than in group B. In our large series we could find only four independent risk factors, and they could only account for 24 % of cases.ConclusionsIn summary, acute appendicitis is still often misdiagnosed and the ratio of negative appendectomies remains rather high. Additional investigations such as observation and computed tomography should be used to prevent this.

ObjectiveRetrorectal tumours are rare lesions in adults. The diagnosis of retrorectal lesion is often difficult and misdiagnosis is common. We present significant number of cases in view of scarce information available on this matter.Methods14 patients were treated at Vilnius university hospital "Santariskiu klinikos" Centre of abdominal surgery from 1997 to 2010. The case notes of patients who underwent surgery for a retrorectal tumour were reviewed retrospectively. Surgical histories, operations, histological tumour type, surgical time, weight of the specimen, blood loss, length of stay were analysed.Results13 patients underwent laparotomy, 1 patient had combined perineal approach and laparotomy. The most common types of the tumour were fibroma (3 cases), leiomyosarcoma (2 cases). 5 tumours (35,7%) were found to be malignant. 57% of the patients had undergone at least one operation prior to definitive treatment. 5 female patients were initially admitted under gynaecologists. Hospital stay varied from 14 days to 22 days (mean 16,2 days). A report of a representative case is presented.ConclusionsRetrorectal lesions in female patients can mimic gynaecological pathology. Patients with this rare pathology are to be treated in a major tertiary hospital by surgeons, who are able to operate safely in the retrorectal space.