Scandinavian Journal of Surgery最新文献

Background: The surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of tumor resection following gastrectomy adds new information that could help clinicians and patients by predicting survival.

Methods: All patients in Sweden undergoing gastric cancer resection between 2006 and 2018 were grouped according to a prospectively registered variable; the surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of surgery: curative, borderline curative, or palliative. Factors affecting group allocation were analyzed with multivariable logistic regression, while survival was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression and the Kaplan-Meier method. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.

Results: Of 2341 patients undergoing gastric cancer resection, 1547 (71%) were deemed curative, 340 (15%) borderline curative, and 314 (14%) palliative (140 missing assessments). Advanced stage increased the risk of borderline curative resection (Stage III, odds ratio (OR) = 6.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.92-9.31), as did emergency surgery OR = 3.31 (1.74-6.31) and blood loss >500 mL; OR = 1.63 (1.06-2.49). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussion both decreased the risk of borderline curative resection, OR = 0.58 (0.39-0.87) and 0.57 (0.40-0.80), respectively. In multivariable Cox regression, the surgeon's assessment independently predicted worse survival for borderline curative (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.29-1.83) and palliative resections (HR = 1.76, 95% CI = 1.45-2.19), compared to curative resections. The sensitivity of the surgeon's assessment of long-term survival was 96.7%. The PPV was 50.7% and the NPV was 92.1%.

Conclusion: The surgeon's intraoperative assessment of the curative potential of gastric cancer surgery may independently aid survival prediction and is analogous to prognostication by pathologic Staging. Advanced disease, emergency surgery, and a high intraoperative blood loss, increases the risk of a borderline curative or palliative resection. Conversely, neoadjuvant treatment and MDT discussion reduce the risk of borderline curative or palliative resection.

Background and aims: In retrospective studies, wound healing and leg salvage have been better if revascularization is targeted to the crural artery supplying arterial flow to the wound angiosome. No data exist on how revascularization changes the blood flow in foot angiosomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in perfusion after infrapopliteal artery revascularization in all foot angiosomes and to compare directly revascularized (DR) angiosomes to the indirectly revascularized (IR) angiosomes.

Methods: In this prospective study, foot perfusion was measured with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging (ICG-FI) before and after either surgical or endovascular below-knee revascularization. According to angiograms, we divided the foot angiosomes into DR and IR angiosomes. Furthermore, in a subanalysis, the IR angiosomes were graded as IR_Coll+ angiosomes if there were strong collaterals arising from the artery which was revascularized, and as IR_Coll- angiosomes if strong collaterals were not seen.

Results: A total of 72 feet (28 bypass, 44 endovascular revascularizations) and 282 angiosomes were analyzed. Surgical and endovascular revascularization increased perfusion significantly in both DR and IR angiosomes. After bypass surgery, the increase in DR angiosomes was 55 U and 53 U in IR angiosomes; there were no significant difference in the perfusion increase between IR and DR angiosomes. After endovascular revascularization, perfusion increased significantly more, 40 U, in DR angiosomes compared to 26 U in IR angiosomes (p < 0.05). In the subanalysis of IR angiosomes, perfusion increased significantly after surgical bypass regardless of whether strong collaterals were present or not. After endovascular revascularization, however, a significant perfusion increase was noted in the IR_Coll+ but not in the IR_Coll- subgroup.

Conclusion: Open revascularization increased perfusion equally in DR and IR angiosomes, whereas endovascular revascularization increased perfusion significantly more in DR than in IR angiosomes. Strong collateral network may help increase perfusion in IR angiosomes.

Background and aims: The clinical significance of early ostomy complications has been emphasized worldwide, and the current evidence concerning the impact of emergency or elective surgery on ostomy complications is limited. This study aimed to investigate the effect of elective and emergency colorectal surgery on early ostomy complications and the risk factors associated with specific complications.

Methods: A mandatory colorectal recording system for consecutive ostomy patients between 2012 and 2020 was reviewed retrospectively. Patient socio-demographics, ostomy-related variables, and early period ostomy complications were retrieved from the patient records. The chi-square test, t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and logistic regression were used to analyze the data.

Results: The study cohort included 872 patients. At least one or more complications developed in 573 (65.7%) patients, 356 (63.6%) in the emergency group, and 217 (69.6%) in the elective group. When comparing emergency surgery to elective surgery, necrosis (7.4% versus 3.4%, p = 0.009), mucocutaneous separation (37.2% versus 27.1%, p = 0.002), and bleeding (6.1% versus 2.1%, p = 0.003) were more prevalent. Peristomal irritant contact dermatitis (PICD) (37.3% versus 26%, p < 0.001) was more common in elective surgery. Risk factors for PICD were comorbidity (p = 0.003), malignant disease (p = 0.047), and loop ostomy (p < 0.001) in elective surgery; female sex (p = 0.025), neo-adjuvant therapy (p = 0.024), and ileostomy (p = 0.006) in emergency surgery. The height of the ostomy (less than 10 mm) was a modifiable risk factor for mucocutaneous separation in both elective surgery (p < 0.001) and emergency surgery (p = 0.045).

Conclusion: Early ostomy complications were more likely to occur after emergency colorectal surgery than in an elective setting. Patient- and ostomy-related risk factors for complications differed between elective and emergency surgeries.

Background: Biomaterials are routinely used in orthopedic surgery to fill bone defects, improve bone healing, and as degradable fixation material. A wide range of materials are currently in use, and the materials are chosen according to their bioactive properties. Osteoinductive materials stimulate bone healing by promoting osteogenesis. Osteoconductive materials facilitate bone growth on the surface of the material. Despite the many materials in use and an increasing number of published studies, randomized controlled trials on the subject are scarce.

Methods: This review aims to summarize the history of biodegradable biomaterials and also the published level I evidence currently available on orthopedic biomaterials.

Results: Most of the studies have been superiority trials with non-significant differences compared to conventional treatment options, confirming that several biomaterials are suitable treatment options for multiple indications including bone and/or tendon fixation, filling bone defects, and spinal fusion. Biomaterials help to avoid donor site complications associated with autogenous bone grafts and often eliminate the need for implant removal. However, the surgical technique may in some cases be more demanding than with conventional methods. Careful consideration of the pros and cons is therefore recommended in clinical practice.

Conclusion: Biodegradable biomaterials complement the range of available treatment options in several fields of orthopedic surgery. However, some biomaterials performed worse than expected and were not recommended for clinical use, emphasizing the need for high-quality randomized trials. It is also noteworthy that several trials included only a limited number of patients, rendering the interpretation of the results of these underpowered studies challenging.