Scandinavian Journal of Surgery最新文献

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.

Background and objective: Stoma site marking is an important factor in reducing stoma-related complications, thereby influencing the long-term quality of life in the elective setting. The impact of preoperative stoma site marking in emergency stoma creation is largely unknown. We aimed to determine whether preoperative stoma site marking in emergency stoma creation reduces stoma-related complications.

Methods: Patients who underwent emergency stoma creation at our hospital between 2009 and 2022 were examined by reviewing our prospective database and retrospective chart review. Subjects were classified into the "marking (+)" or "marking (-)" group according to stoma site marking (194 and 151 patients, respectively). The changes in the frequency of stoma marking over time and the effects of stoma marking on stoma-related complications were analyzed.

Results: The overall frequency of grade 2 or higher stoma-related complications was lower in the marking (+) group than in the marking (-) group (24% versus 36%, p = 0.010). Stoma site marking was associated with fewer soma site bleeding (2% versus 10%, p < 0.001), and the frequency of peristomal dermatitis was also lower (10%) in the marking (+) group (versus 18%, p = 0.042). Moreover, the lack of stoma site marking was an independent risk factor for overall stoma-related complications (adjusted odds ratio: 1.69, p = 0.034).

Conclusions: Preoperative stoma site marking was associated with stoma-related complications in emergency surgery. The clinical significance of our attempt is worth validating with prospective studies.

Background and aims: Parastomal hernia (PSH) is a common complication after the creation of a colostomy, with a prevalence of approximately 50%. Despite the high frequency, little is known how PSH affects the cost of colostomy care.The hypothesis in this study was that PSH increases the cost of colostomy care compared with not having a PSH.

Methods: Two groups with (N = 61) and without (n = 147) PSH were compared regarding costs of stoma appliances and visits. The population from a large randomized trial comparing construction of colostomy with or without prophylactic mesh (STOMAMESH) was used and cross-matched with health economic data from the National Pharmaceutical Register, 1 year after initial surgery.

Results: Patients with and without a PSH were similar in basic demographic data. No difference in cost of stoma appliances (with PSH 2668.3 EUR versus no PSH 2724.5 EUR, p = 0.938) or number of visits to a stoma therapist (p = 0.987) was seen, regardless of the presence or not of a PSH.

Conclusions: PSH appears not to affect costs due to colostomy appliances or the need to visit a stoma therapist, in the first year. The lesson to be learnt is that PSHs are not a driver for costs. Other factors may be determinants of the cost of a colostomy, including manufacturers' price and persuasion, means of procurement, and presence of guidelines.

Background and aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical experiences and cost-effectiveness by comparing robot-assisted surgery with laparoscopic- or open surgery for pelvic and renal operations.

Methods: A narrative review was carried out.

Results: When using robotic-assisted surgery, oncological and functional results are similar to after laparoscopic or open surgery. One exception may be a shorter survival in cancer of the cervix uteri. In addition, postoperative complications after robotic-assisted surgery are similar, bleeding and transfusion needs are less, and the hospital stay is shorter but the preparation of the operating theater before and after surgery and the operation times are longer. Finally, robot-assisted surgery has, in several studies, been reported to be not cost-effective primarily due to high investment costs. However, more recent studies provide improved cost-effectiveness estimates due to more effective preparation of the operating theater before surgery, improved surgeon experience, and decreased investment costs.

Conclusions: Complications and functional and oncological outcomes after robot-assisted surgery are similar to open surgery and laparoscopic surgery. The cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery is likely to equal or surpass the alternatives.

The current application of robotic surgery is evolving at a high pace in the current years. The technical advantages enable several abdominal surgical procedures to be performed minimally invasive instead of open surgery. Furthermore, procedures previously performed successfully using standard laparoscopy are now performed with a robotic approach, with conflicting results. The present narrative review reports the current literature on the robotic surgical procedures typically performed in a typical Scandinavian surgical department: colorectal, hernia, hepato-biliary, and esophagogastric surgery.

Aim: Rectal cancers requiring beyond total mesorectal excision (bTME) are traditionally operated using an open approach, but the use of minimally invasive robot-assisted procedures is increasing. Introduction of minimal invasive surgery for complex cancer cases could be associated with compromised surgical margins or increased complication rates. Therefore, reporting results both clinical and oncological in large series is important. Since bTME procedure reports are heterogeneous, comparing results is often difficult. In this study, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) classification system was used to describe the bTME surgery according to pelvic compartments.

Methods: Consecutive patients with primary rectal cancer operated with laparoscopic robot-assisted bTME were prospectively included for 2 years. All patients had tumors that threatened the mesorectal fascia, invaded adjacent organs, and/or involved metastatic pelvic lateral lymph nodes. Short-term clinical outcomes and oncological specimen quality were registered. Surgery was classified according to pelvic compartments resected.

Results: Clear resection margins (R0 resection) were achieved in 95 out of 105 patients (90.5%). About 26% had Accordion Severity Grading System of Surgical Complications grade 3-4 complications and 15% required re-operations. About 7% were converted to open surgery. The number of compartments resected ranged from one to the maximum seven, with 83% having two or three compartments resected. All 10 R1 resections occurred in the lateral and posterior compartments.

Conclusions: The short-term clinical outcomes and oncological specimen quality after robot-assisted bTME surgery were comparable to previously published open bTME surgery. The description of surgical procedures using the Royal Marsden MRI compartment classification was feasible.