Background Although self‐expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement as bridge to surgery (BTS) in patients with left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer has shown promising short‐term results, it is used infrequently owing to uncertainty about its oncological safety. This population study compared long‐term oncological outcomes between emergency resection and SEMS placement as BTS. Methods Through a national collaborative research project, long‐term outcome data were collected for all patients who underwent resection for left‐sided obstructing colonic cancer between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals. Patients were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit database. SEMS as BTS was compared with emergency resection in the curative setting after 1 : 2 propensity score matching. Results Some 222 patients who had a stent placed were matched to 444 who underwent emergency resection. The overall SEMS‐related perforation rate was 7·7 per cent (17 of 222). Three‐year locoregional recurrence rates after SEMS insertion and emergency resection were 11·4 and 13·6 per cent (P = 0·457), disease‐free survival rates were 58·8 and 52·6 per cent (P = 0·175), and overall survival rates were 74·0 and 68·3 per cent (P = 0·231), respectively. SEMS placement resulted in significantly fewer permanent stomas (23·9 versus 45·3 per cent; P < 0·001), especially in elderly patients (29·0 versus 57·9 per cent; P < 0·001). For patients in the SEMS group with or without perforation, 3‐year locoregional recurrence rates were 18 and 11·0 per cent (P = 0·432), disease‐free survival rates were 49 and 59·6 per cent (P = 0·717), and overall survival rates 61 and 75·1 per cent (P = 0·529), respectively. Conclusion Overall, SEMS as BTS seems an oncologically safe alternative to emergency resection with fewer permanent stomas. Nevertheless, the risk of SEMS‐related perforation, as well as permanent stoma, might influence shared decision‐making for individual patients.
Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic led to major changes in health care and education options for all health care employees. The aim of this study is to achieve insight into coronavirus diseasecare participation of surgical residents in the Netherlands, the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on the experienced quality of surgical training, and the influence on Burn-out and Work Engagement compared with the non-coronavirus disease 2019 period in January 2020. Methods: In this study, we have conducted 2 digital surveys immediately before and 2 months after the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. We surveyed a validated Dutch questionnaire 'Utrecht Burn-out Scale,' derived from the Maslach Burn-out Inventory, and also collected the 'Utrecht Work Engagement Scale' measuring work engagement. Additionally, we describe the coronavirus disease-care participation of surgical residents, the impact on how they experienced the quality of their surgical training, and the influence on 'Burn-out and Work Engagement' compared with the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period for surgical residents in the Netherlands. Results: In January 2020, a total of 317 residents completed the online survey, and in April 2020, a total of 313 residents completed the online survey. Of the responders, 48.6%, in April, participated in coronavirus disease-care in both the coronavirus disease ward as well as the coronavirus disease intensive care unit. Residents experienced that the coronavirus disease 2019 influenced their surgical training in 85.2% of responders. In only 5% of the residents did the pandemic not affect the exposure to surgical training in the operating theater. More burn-out symptoms were noted amongst coronavirus disease ward deployed residents versus no coronavirus disease ward deployment, (16.0% vs 7.6%, P ¼ .06). The Work-Engagement questionnaire showed a significantly lower work engagement score of 4.2 for residents who were deployed in a coronavirus disease-care intensive care unit versus a score of 4.6 for residents scheduled in a coronavirus disease ward (P ¼ .02). Conclusion:This study shows a significant impact of the first months of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on the Dutch surgical trainee program, with a major redistribution of residents with a decrease of surgical exposure and education. We emphasize the need for adequate guidance of all surgical residents and potentially lengthening the surgical training program.
Five-year patency rates of self-expanding covered stents inserted for SFA occlusive disease are within an acceptable range. Covered stent diameter is the most relevant factor in predicting loss of primary patency, and thus, an adequate diameter of the distal landing site seems to be among the most important factors in the decision-making process. In smaller vessels, one should not use covered stents but venous conduits, as oversizing may be detrimental.
BackgroundAcute appendicitis is one of the most common indications for emergency surgery. In patients with a complex appendicitis, prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis is recommended after appendectomy. There is no consensus regarding the optimum duration of antibiotics. Guidelines propose 3 to 7 days of treatment, but shorter courses may be as effective in the prevention of infectious complications. At the same time, the global issue of increasing antimicrobial resistance urges for optimization of antibiotic strategies. The aim of this study is to determine whether a short course (48 h) of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to current standard practice of 5 days.MethodsPatients of 8 years and older undergoing appendectomy for acute complex appendicitis – defined as a gangrenous and/or perforated appendicitis or appendicitis in presence of an abscess – are eligible for inclusion. Immunocompromised or pregnant patients are excluded, as well as patients with a contraindication to the study antibiotics. In total, 1066 patients will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the experimental treatment arm (48 h of postoperative intravenously administered (IV) antibiotics) or the control arm (5 days of postoperative IV antibiotics). After discharge from the hospital, patients participate in a productivity-cost-questionnaire at 4 weeks and a standardized telephone follow-up at 90 days after appendectomy. The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of infectious complications, including intra-abdominal abscess (IAA) and surgical site infection (SSI), and mortality within 90 days after appendectomy. Secondary outcomes include IAA, SSI, restart of antibiotics, length of hospital stay (LOS), reoperation, percutaneous drainage, readmission rate, and cost-effectiveness. The non-inferiority margin for the difference in the primary endpoint rate is set at 7.5% (one-sided test at ɑ 0.025). Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be performed.DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence on whether 48 h of postoperative antibiotics is non-inferior to a standard course of 5 days of antibiotics. If non-inferiority is established, longer intravenous administration following appendectomy for complex appendicitis can be abandoned, and guidelines need to be adjusted accordingly.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register, NTR6128. Registered on 20 December 2016.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2629-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
A male cyclist presented with a swelling on the forehead. Six weeks before, he fell of his bike and smashed his head on the ground while wearing a helmet. A smooth lump of 1 cm had evolved on the temporal side of his forehead in a few weeks. Duplex ultrasonography demonstrated a dilated vessel with a minor defect in the luminal wall. Surgical exploration revealed an aneurysm of the superficial temporal artery (STA). The aneurysm was surgically removed and the patient recovered uneventfully. Owing to its superficial course, the STA is vulnerable to blunt head trauma. Traumatic aneurysms of the STA should be a differential diagnostic consideration in patients with a history of trauma and a swelling on their head.
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.