scholarly journals Open Replacement of the Thoracoabdominal Aorta: Short- and Long-term Outcomes at a Single Institution

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (02) ◽  
pp. 114-120
Author(s):  
Davide Carino ◽  
Young Erben ◽  
Mohammad Zafar ◽  
Mrinal Singh ◽  
Adam Brownstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Aortic Diseases ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Thoracoabdominal Aorta ◽  
Primary Endpoints ◽  
Short And Long Term ◽  
Optimal Approach

Background Despite much progress in the surgical and endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal aortic diseases (TAADs), there is no consensus regarding the optimal approach to minimize operative mortality and end-organ dysfunction. We report our experience in the past 16 years treating TAAD by open surgery. Methods A retrospective review of all TAAD patients who underwent an open repair since January 2000 was performed. The primary endpoints included early morbidity and mortality, and the secondary endpoints were overall death and rate of aortic reintervention. Results There were 112 patients treated by open surgery for TAAD. Mean age was 66 ± 10 years and 61 (54%) were male. Seventy-seven (69%) patients had aneurysmal degeneration without aortic dissection and the remaining 35 (31%) had a concomitant aortic dissection. There were 12 deaths (10.7%) and they were equally distributed between the aneurysm and dissection groups (p = 0.8). The mortality for elective surgery was 3.2% (2/61). The rate of permanent paraplegia and stroke were each 2.6% (3/112). The rate of cerebrovascular accident was significantly higher in the dissection group (8.5% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.05). The survival at 1, 5, and 10 years was 80.6, 56.1, and 32.7%, respectively. Conclusion Our data confirm that open replacement of the thoracoabdominal aorta can be performed in expert centers quite safely. Different aortic pathologies (degenerative aneurysm vs. dissection) do not influence the short- and long-term outcomes. Open surgery should still be considered the standard in the management of TAAD.

Percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous procedure for the management of bile duct injuries after cholecystectomy: short- and long-term outcomes

Endoscopy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 50 (06) ◽  
pp. 577-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Schreuder ◽  
Klaske Booij ◽  
Philip de Reuver ◽  
Otto van Delden ◽  
Krijn van Lienden ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bile Duct ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Definitive Treatment ◽  
Safe Procedure ◽  
Bridge To Surgery ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Short And Long Term

Abstract Background Bile duct injury (BDI) remains a daunting complication of laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In patients with complex BDI, a percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous procedure may be required to establish bile duct continuity. The aim of this study was to assess short- and long-term outcomes of the rendezvous procedure. Methods All consecutive patients with BDI referred to our tertiary referral center between 1995 and 2016 were analyzed. A rendezvous procedure was performed when endoscopic or radiologic intervention failed, and when deemed feasible by a dedicated multidisciplinary team including hepatopancreaticobiliary surgeons, gastrointestinal endoscopists, and interventional radiologists. Classification of BDI, technical success of the rendezvous procedure, procedure-related adverse events, and outcomes were assessed. Results Among a total of 812 patients, rendezvous was performed in 47 (6 %), 31 (66 %) of whom were diagnosed with complete transection of the bile duct (Amsterdam type D/Strasberg type E injury). The primary success rate of rendezvous was 94 % (44 /47 patients). Overall morbidity was 18 % (10 /55 procedures). No life-threatening adverse events or 90-day mortality occurred. After a median follow-up of 40 months (interquartile range 23 – 54 months), rendezvous was the final successful treatment in 26 /47 patients (55 %). In 14 /47 patients (30 %), rendezvous acted as a bridge to surgery, with hepaticojejunostomy being chosen either primarily or secondarily to treat refractory or relapsing stenosis. Conclusions In experienced hands, rendezvous was a safe procedure, with a long-term success rate of 55 %. When endoscopic or transhepatic interventions fail to restore bile duct continuity in patients with BDI, rendezvous should be considered, either as definitive treatment or as a bridge to elective surgery.

scholarly journals Short- and Long-Term Outcomes after Iatrogenic Type A Aortic Dissection

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Brendel ◽  
D.S. Dohle ◽  
H. El Beyrouti ◽  
P. Pfeiffer ◽  
M. El Mehsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aortic Dissection ◽  
Type A ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Type A Aortic Dissection ◽  
Short And Long Term

Laparoscopic versus open surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with S-1: Short- and long-term outcomes of multicenter prospective phase II trials.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 793-793
Author(s):  
Takao Hara ◽  
Tomonori Akagi ◽  
Shinichiro Empuku ◽  
Kentaro Nakajima ◽  
Iwaki Kentaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Laparoscopic Surgery ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii Trials ◽  
Long Term Outcomes ◽  
Short And Long Term

793 Background: We have reported the effectiveness of neoadjuvant radiotherapy (RT) combined with S-1 in terms of compliance and pathologic response for locally advanced rectal cancer. In the present study, we aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant RT combined with S-1 in comparison with open surgery. Methods: Two multicenter prospective phase II trials were conducted (UMIN003396, UMIN003398). A total of 63 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer classified as T3-4, N0-3, and M0 were enrolled, and neoadjuvant RT combined with S-1 and total mesorectal excision with D3 lymphadenectomy was performed. Of these, 57 patients were analyzed and divided into a laparoscopic group (LAP, n = 43) and open group (OP, n = 14). We evaluated the short- and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic surgery compared with open surgery by univariate and multivariate analyses. Results: In the patient background, there were no significant differences between the two groups except that cases with T3 and N0 were significantly higher in the LAP compared with the OP. In the operative findings, operation time was longer (mean 447 min vs. 352 min, p = 0.007) and blood loss was lesser (median 220 ml vs. 485 ml, p = 0.033) in the LAP than those in the OP. Although there were no significant differences observed in the incidence of perioperative and late complications between the two groups, reoperation within 30 days was significantly less in the LAP compared with the OP (1 case vs. 5 cases, p = 0.0004). In the multivariate analysis, a distance of the tumor from anal verge within 3 cm was the independent risk factor for reoperation within 30 days. Furthermore, estimated 5-year disease-free survival (LAP 72 % vs. OP 73 %, p = 0.945) and 5-year overall survival (LAP 76 % vs. 75 %, p = 0.836) didn’t significantly differ between the two groups in the Kaplan–Meier curve. Conclusions: The findings of this study demonstrated that laparoscopic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer following neoadjuvant RT combined with S-1 could be an optional procedure in terms of short- and long-term outcomes. Clinical trial information: UMIN000003396, UMIN000003398.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document