Background:Intraperitoneal adhesion formation is a serious postsurgical issue. Adhesions develop after damage to the peritoneum by surgery, irradiation, infection or trauma.Objectives:Using a rat model, we compared the effectiveness of systemic and intraperitoneally administered common immunosuppressive drugs for prevention of postoperative intraperitoneal adhesions.Materials and Methods:Peritoneal adhesions were induced in 98 female Wistar-Albino rats by cecal abrasion and peritoneal excision. Rats were randomly separated into seven groups, each containing fourteen rats, and the standard experimental model was applied to all of rats. 14 days later, rats were euthanized, intraperitoneal adhesions were scored and tissues were examined histologically using hematoxylin/eosin and Masson’s trichrome staining.Results:Throughout the investigation, no animal died during or after surgery. In all of experimental groups, decrease in fibrosis was statistically significant. Decrease in fibrosis was most prominently in intraperitoneal tacrolimus group (P = 0.000), and decrease was least in intraperitoneal cyclosporine group (P = 0.022). Vascular proliferation was significantly decreased in all experimental groups (P < 0.05) except for systemic tacrolimus group (P = 0.139). Most prominent reduction in vascular proliferation was in intraperitoneal tacrolimus group (P = 0.000).Conclusions:Administration of immunosuppressive drugs is effective for prevention of intraperitoneal adhesions.
Background Many surgeons routinely place intraperitoneal drains after elective colorectal surgery. However, enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines recommend against their routine use owing to a lack of clear clinical benefit. This study aimed to describe international variation in intraperitoneal drain placement and the safety of this practice. Methods COMPASS (COMPlicAted intra-abdominal collectionS after colorectal Surgery) was a prospective, international, cohort study which enrolled consecutive adults undergoing elective colorectal surgery (February to March 2020). The primary outcome was the rate of intraperitoneal drain placement. Secondary outcomes included: rate and time to diagnosis of postoperative intraperitoneal collections; rate of surgical site infections (SSIs); time to discharge; and 30-day major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo grade at least III). After propensity score matching, multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to estimate the independent association of the secondary outcomes with drain placement. Results Overall, 1805 patients from 22 countries were included (798 women, 44.2 per cent; median age 67.0 years). The drain insertion rate was 51.9 per cent (937 patients). After matching, drains were not associated with reduced rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.33, 95 per cent c.i. 0.79 to 2.23; P = 0.287) or earlier detection (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87, 0.33 to 2.31; P = 0.780) of collections. Although not associated with worse major postoperative complications (OR 1.09, 0.68 to 1.75; P = 0.709), drains were associated with delayed hospital discharge (HR 0.58, 0.52 to 0.66; P < 0.001) and an increased risk of SSIs (OR 2.47, 1.50 to 4.05; P < 0.001). Conclusion Intraperitoneal drain placement after elective colorectal surgery is not associated with earlier detection of postoperative collections, but prolongs hospital stay and increases SSI risk.
BackgroundHaemorrhoids are cushions of submucosal vascular tissue located in the anal canal starting just distal to the dentate line. Haemorrhoidal disease is a common anorectal disorder which has symptoms of bleeding, prolapse, pain, thrombosis, mucus discharge, and pruritus. Haemorrhoidectomy is one of most frequently performed anorectal operation worldwide.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the LigaSure tissue sealing device, Harmonic Scalpel and conventional MM open haemorrhoidectomy.Materials and MethodsSixty-nine patients with newly diagnosed symptomatic grade three or grade four haemorrhoidal disease, from July 2011 to December 2011 were recruited for the study. Patients were prospectively randomized to LigaSure, Harmonic Scalpel and conventional haemorrhoidectomy. Patients were evaluated on the basis of the mean operative time, postoperative pain, day of discharge, early and late complications.ResultsEach group has twenty-three patients. Ten (14.5 %) were female and fifty-nine (85.5 %) were male. Mean age were 44.5 ± 10.8 for LigaSure group, 39.5±14.4 for Harmonic Scalpel group and 39.8 ± 13.6 for conventional haemorrhoidectomy group. Mean operative time was 12.6 ± 2.9 for LigaSure group, 12.6 ± 2.5 for Harmonic Scalpel group and 22.3 ± 4.5 for conventional haemorrhoidectomy group. Postoperative pain and required analgesic dose were significantly lower for conventional haemorrhoidectomy. Wound healing was also more rapid in conventional haemorrhoidectomy than both LigaSure and Harmonic Scalpel.ConclusionsLateral heat dissipation of energy based cautery such as Harmonel Scalpel and LigaSure is considerably high when compared with conventional methods. More thermal damage which is generated on tissue seems to be the reason for increased degree of postoperative pain and delay in wound healing.
Jo ur na l of Ac ad em ic Em er ge nc y M ed ici ne Ak ad em ik Ac il Tıp Olg u Su nu ml arı De rgi si
The neuroprotective effects of propofol have been confirmed. However, it remains unclear whether intrathecal administration of propofol exhibits neuroprotective effects on spinal cord ischemia. At 1 hour prior to spinal cord ischemia, propofol (100 and 300 µg) was intrathecally administered in rats with spinal cord ischemia. Propofol pre-treatment greatly improved rat pathological changes and neurological function deficits at 24 hours after spinal cord ischemia. These results suggest that intrathecal administration of propofol exhibits neuroprotective effects on spinal cord structural and functional damage caused by ischemia.
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.