Systemic review/meta-analysis, level III.

No abstract

Background: Gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are the most frequent mesenchymal tumours in the digestive tract. The duodenal GIST (dGIST) is the rarest subtype, representing only 4-5% of all GIST, but up to 21% of the resected ones. The diagnostic and therapeutic management of dGIST may be difficult due to the rarity of this tumor, its anatomical location, and the clinical behavior that often mimic a variety of conditions; moreover, there is lack of consent for their treatment. This study has evaluated the scientific literature to provide consensus on the diagnosis of dGIST and to outline possible options for surgical treatment.Methods: An extensive research has been carried out on the electronic databases MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE and Cochrane to identify all clinical trials that report an event or case series of dGIST.Results: Eighty-six studies that met the inclusion criteria were identified with five hundred forty-nine patients with dGIST: twenty-seven patients were treated with pancreatoduodenectomy and ninety-six with only local resection (segmental/wedge resections); in four hundred twenty-six patients it is not possible identify the type of treatment performed (pancreatoduodenectomy or segmental/wedge resections).Conclusions: dGISTs are a very rare subset of GISTs. They may be asymptomatic or may involve symptoms of upper GI bleeding and abdominal pain at presentation. Because of the misleading clinical presentation the differential diagnosis may be difficult. Tumours smaller than 2 cm have a low biological aggressiveness and can be followed annually by endoscopic ultrasound. The biggest ones should undergo radical surgical resection (R0). In dGIST there is no uniformly adopted surgical strategy because of the low incidence, lack of experience, and the complex anatomy of the duodenum. Therefore, individually tailored surgical approach is recommended. R0 resection with 1-2 cm clear margin is required. Lymph node dissection is not recommended due to the low incidence of lymphatic metastases. Tumor rupture should be avoided.

Aim The aim of the present work was to perform an up‐to‐date review of the literature on endoluminal negative pressure therapy for colorectal anastomotic leak. Method An electronic search in PubMed and Google Scholar and a manual search without language restrictions were performed on 25 January 2019. Only original series reporting endoluminal negative pressure therapy in colorectal anastomotic leaks were included. The primary outcome was the success rate (complete closure of the abscess cavity). The secondary outcomes were the rates of complications and stoma closure. Results Nineteen series with a total of 295 cases were analysed. The median distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge and the size of the abscess were 5.65 cm (4.9–10) and 6.0 cm (5–8.1) respectively. In 84.5% (78%–91%) the stoma was created at the first intervention. Neoadjuvant therapy was performed in 48.6% (3%–60%). Median 7 sponges (2–34) were used with median negative pressure 150 mmHg (125–700) for a median of 31 days (14–127). The success rate was 85.4% (80%–91%) with ileostomy closure in 72.6%. Complications were observed in 19% (13%–25%): abscesses 11.5% and anastomotic stenosis 4.4%. Laparotomy was required in 15% of the complications. The stoma was the only significant predictor for the success of the therapy (0.007, SE 0.004, P = 0.040). Conclusions The initial experience looks promising with an 85% success rate, which precludes risky re‐resections with redo anastomosis or Hartmann's procedure. Despite the good initial results, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn because of the small sample size and the lack of high‐quality comparative studies.

Rationale:Retroperitoneal colonic perforation is a rare cause of retroperitoneal abscess. It presents, more frequently in frail elderly patients, with heterogeneous signs and symptoms which hamper the clinical diagnosis. Subcutaneous emphysema with pneumomediastinum and iliopsoas muscle abscess are unusual signs. Colonic retroperitoneal perforation may be consequent to diverticulitis or locally advanced colon cancer. Due to the anatomy of the retroperitoneal space and different physiopathology, diverticular perforation may present with air and pus collection; on the other hand perforated colon cancer may cause groin mass and psoas abscess. We reported 2 cases of colonic retroperitoneal perforation from diverticulitis and locally advanced colon cancer, respectively. Aim of this report is to improve differential diagnosis based on clinical signs.Patients’ concerns:A 71-year-old man presented with pain in his left side, fatigue, fever, nausea, massive subcutaneous emphysema of the neck, and Blumberg sign in the left iliac fossa. A 67-year-old man presented with abdominal pain, sub-occlusion, left groin mass, left groin, and lower limb pain during walking, negative Blumberg sign.Diagnosis:In the first patient the computerized tomography revealed pneumoperitoneum, gas in the mesosigma, pneumomediastinum, wall thickening of the descending colon, and retroperitoneal collection from diverticular perforation. In the second patient abdominal CT scan found thickening of the sigmoid colon adherent to the iliopsoas and fluid collection.Interventions:In the first patient, a left hemicolectomy extending to the transverse colon, followed by a toilette and debridement of the retroperitoneum were performed. In the second patient, tumor of descending colon perforated in the retroperitoneum with iliopsoas abscess was treated with left hemicolectomy and a drainage of the abscess.Outcomes:The first patient underwent right colectomy with ileostomy in the 7th postoperative day for large bowel necrosis. He died of sepsis 2 days after. The second patient had regular postoperative and he is still alive.Lessons:The spread of retroperitoneal abscess in complicated colonic diverticulitis is different from that in advanced colonic cancer. The former can present with a subcutaneous emphysema, the latter with a groin mass. Hence a thorough clinical examination and radiological studies are needed to diagnose these conditions.

The management of patients with colonic diverticular perforation is still evolving. Initial lavage with or without simple suture and drainage was suggested in the late 19th century, replaced progressively by the three-stage Mayo Clinic or the two-stage Mickulicz procedures. Fears of inadequate source control prompted the implementation of the resection of the affected segment of colon with formation of a colostomy (Hartman procedure) in the 1970’s. Ensuing development of the treatment strategies was driven by the recognition of the high morbidity and mortality and low reversal rates associated with the Hartman procedure. This led to the wider use of resection and primary anastomosis during the 1990’s.The technique of lavage and drainage regained popularity during the 1990’s. This procedure can also be performed laparoscopically with the advantage of faster recovery and shorter hospital stay. This strategy allows resectional surgery to be postponed or avoided altogether in many patients; and higher rates of primary resection and anastomosis can be achieved avoiding the need for a stoma. The three recent randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic peritoneal lavage alone to resectional surgery reported inconsistent outcomes.The aim of this review is to review the historical evolution and future reflections of surgical treatment modalities for diffuse purulent and feculent peritonitis. In this review we classified the various surgical strategies according to Krukowski et al. and Vermeulen et al. and reviewed the literature related to surgical treatment separately for each period.

The results clearly suggest the obvious advantage of VAC in comparison to the temporary abdominal closure without negative pressure in the cases with severe diffuse peritonitis. However, to a large extent, our results might be attributed to the combination of VAC with dynamic fascial closure.

IntroductionThe world remains plagued by wars and terrorist attacks, and improvised explosive devices (IED) are the main weapons of our current enemies, causing almost two-thirds of all combat injuries. We wished to analyse the pattern of blast trauma on the modern battlefield and to compare it with combat gunshot injuries. Materials and methods Analysis of a consecutive series of combat trauma patients presenting to two Bulgarian combat surgical teams in Afghanistan over 11 months. Demographics, injury patterns and Injury Severity Scores (ISS) were compared between blast and gunshot-injured casualties using Fisher's Exact Test. Results The blast victims had significantly higher median ISS (20.54 vs 9.23) and higher proportion of ISS>16 (60% vs 33.92%, p=0.008) than gunshot cases. They also had more frequent involvement of three or more body regions (47.22% vs 3.58%, p<0.0001). A significantly higher frequency of head (27.27% vs 3.57%), facial (20% vs 0%) and extremities injuries (85.45% vs 42.86%) and burns (12.72% vs 0%) was noted among the victims of explosion ( p<0.0001). Based on clinical examination and diagnostic imaging, primary blast injury was identified in 24/55 (43.6%), secondary blast injury in 37 blast cases (67.3%), tertiary in 15 (27.3%) and quaternary blast injury (all burns) in seven (12.72%). Conclusions Our results corroborate the 'multidimensional' injury pattern of blast trauma. The complexity of the blast trauma demands a good knowledge and a special training of the military surgeons and hospital personnel before deployment.