Benefits of laparoscopic colorectal surgery in the geriatric patient

Background. Our aim is the retrospective valuation of results in over 75 year-old patients, with colorectal cancer, treated with laparoscopic and laparotomic surgery, considering how laparoscopic surgery has improved these patients’ outcome. Patients and methods. We took all over 75 year-old patients, affected by colorectal cancer, treated with colectomy. Patients has been divided into two groups: laparotomy group and laparoscopy group. Data concerning patients, i.e., age, sex, BMI, ASA, comorbidities, were collected with data concerning the operation (surgical time, conversion percentage). Postoperative outcomes – i.e., gas evacuation, bowel movements, solid and liquid feeding, need to ICU, complications, re-surgery, hospitalization and type of discharge, mortality – were evaluated. Results. A total of 145 patients are included: laparotomy 80 and laparoscopy 51. Two groups are homogeneous for age, sex, BMI, ASA, comorbidities. Surgical times are the same. Need to Intesive Care Unit (ICU) is lower in laparoscopy. Gas evacuation and bowel movements are earlier in laparoscopy. Liquid and solid diet is earlier in laparoscopy. Hospitalization was earlier after laparoscopy. Discharge at home is more frequent in laparoscopy. Major and minor complications are lower in laparoscopy. Post-operative mortality is lower in laparoscopy. Conclusions. Laparoscopy improves over 75 year-old patients’ outcomes, after elective surgery for colorectal cancer. Surgery trauma, anaesthesia, nutritional and hemodynamic alterations, are factors that break the old patients’ fragile physiologic balance. Less traumatic surgery improves old patients’ outcomes.

Recurrent varicose veins of the legs. Analysis of a social problem

The present study was aimed at assessing the experience of a single referral center with recurrent varicose veins of the legs (RVL) over the period 1993-2008. Among a total of 846 procedures for Leg Varices (LV), 74 procedures were for RVL (8.7%). The causes of recurrence were classified as classic: insufficient crossectomy (13); incompetent perforating veins (13); reticular phlebectasia (22); small saphenous vein insufficiency (9); accessory saphenous veins (4); and particular: post-hemodynamic treatment (5); incomplete stripping (1); Sapheno-Femoral Junction (SFJ) vascularization (5); post-thermal ablation (2). For the “classic” RVL the treatment consisted essentially of completing the previous treatment, both if the problem was linked to an insufficient earlier treatment and if it was due to a later onset. The most common cause in our series was reticular phlebectasia; when the simple sclerosing injections are not sufficient, this was treated by phlebectomy according to Mueller. The “particular” cases classified as 1, 2 and 4 were also treated by completing the traditional stripping procedure (+ crossectomy if this had not been done previously), considered to be the gold standard. In the presence of a SFJ neo-vascularization, with or without cavernoma, approximately 5 cm of femoral vein were explored, the afferent vessels ligated and, if cavernoma was present, it was removed. Although inguinal neo-angiogenesis is a possible mechanism, some doubt can be raised as to its importance as a primary factor in causing recurrent varicose veins, rather than their being due to a preexisting vein left in situ because it was ignored, regarded as insignificant, or poorly evident. In conclusion, we stress that LV is a progressive disease, so the treatment is unlikely to be confined to a single procedure. It is important to plan adequate monitoring during follow-up, and to be ready to reoperate when new problems present that, if left, could lead the patient to doubt the validity and efficacy of the original treatment.

Diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries can be challenging in multitrauma patients with associated injuries. Our experience and review of the literature

ntroduction. Trauma is the most common cause of death and disability among patients during the first four decades of life. Abdominal trauma is reported to be the 3rd most common injured region. Clinical examination may be unreliable in the evaluation of these patients especially in the presence of associated injuries. Therefore the use of diagnostic tools is essential in the management of the injured patient with abdominal trauma and additional injuries. Patients and Methods. During 1 year period from December 2010 to November 2011 we recorded the patients that presented to the emergency department of our hospital and were found to suffer from intra-abdominal injuries. These patients were divided in two groups depending on whether they had additional comorbid injuries or not. Several parameters were recorded and compared between the two groups, such as mechanism of injury, general status and hemodynamic stability of the patient on presentation, physical examination, use of imaging modalities and concomitant findings, need for surgical intervention and mortality rates. Furthermore the discrepancy between physical findings and final diagnosis after the use of diagnostic adjuncts is reported. Results. We recorded 31 patients with abdominal trauma. 13 (42%) patients were found to suffer from abdominal trauma and associated injuries (Group I), whereas 18 (58%) presented with abdominal trauma alone (Group II). The patients of the first group presented hemodynamic instability in 38% of cases while the patients of the second in 22% of cases. Reduced consciousness was present in 38% in group I versus 17% in group II. Signs of abdominal injury during clinical examination were present in only 15% in group I versus 72% in group II that represented a remarkable difference between the two groups. Conservative treatment was possible in 15% of patients with additional injuries and in 22% of patients with abdominal injury alone. In group I there were two deaths whereas in group II all patients survived. Conclusion. In patients with abdominal trauma, associated injuries seem to add to the severity of injury and indicate a worse prognosis. Clinical examination is unreliable and misleading in the majority of these patients and the use of diagnostic tools cannot be overemphasized.