RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Mesenteric venous thrombosis (MVT) is a rare cause of acute surgical abdomen, with high mortality. The aim of this study was to analyze long-term outcomes and possible factors influencing its prognosis. METHODS: All patients who underwent urgent surgery for MVT from 1990 to 2020 in our center were reviewed. Epidemiological, clinical, and surgical data; postoperative outcomes; origin of thrombosis; and long-term survival were analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: primary MVT (hypercoagulability disorders or idiopathic MVT) and secondary MVT (underlying disease). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients, 36 (65.5%) men and 19 (34.5%) women, mean age 66.7 years (standard deviation: ±18.0 years), underwent surgery for MVT. Arterial hypertension (63.6%) was the most prevalent comorbidity. Regarding the possible origin of MVT, 41 (74.5%) patients had primary MVT and 14 (25.5%) patients had secondary MVT. From these, 11 (20%) patients had hypercoagulable states, 7 (12.7%) had neoplasia, 4 (7.3%) had abdominal infection, 3 (5.5%) had liver cirrhosis, 1 (1.8%) patient had recurrent pulmonary thromboembolism, and 1 (1.8%) had deep venous thrombosis. Computed tomography was diagnostic of MVT in 87.9% of the cases. Intestinal resection was performed in 45 patients due to ischemia. Only 6 patients (10.9%) had no complication, 17 patients (30.9%) presented minor complications, and 32 patients (58.2%) presented severe complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Operative mortality was 23.6%. In univariate analysis, comorbidity measured by the Charlson index (P = .019) and massive ischemia (P = .002) were related to operative mortality. The probability of being alive at 1, 3, and 5 years was 66.4%, 57.9%, and 51.0%, respectively. In univariate analysis of survival, age (P < .001), comorbidity (P < .001), and type of MVT (P = .003) were associated with a good prognosis. Age (P = .002; hazard ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.09) and comorbidity (P = .019; hazard ratio: 1.28, 95% confidence interval: 1.04-1.57) behaved as independent prognostic factors for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical MVT continues to show high lethality. Age and comorbidity according to the Charlson index correlate well with mortality risk. Primary MVT tends to have a better prognosis than secondary MVT.
Assuntos
Isquemia Mesentérica , Trombofilia , Trombose , Trombose Venosa , Masculino , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Isquemia Mesentérica/diagnóstico por imagem , Isquemia Mesentérica/cirurgia , Isquemia Mesentérica/complicações , Trombose Venosa/diagnóstico por imagem , Trombose Venosa/cirurgia , Trombose Venosa/complicações , Trombofilia/complicações , Isquemia/complicações , Estudos RetrospectivosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Despite the acceptance of the laparoscopic approach for the treatment of perforated peptic ulcers, its definitive implantation is still a matter of discussion. We performed a comparative study between the open and laparoscopic approach focused on postoperative surgical complications. METHODS: Retrospective observational study in which patients operated on for perforated peptic ulcus in our center between 2001 and 2017 were analyzed. Only those in whom suture and/or omentoplasty had been performed were selected, either for open or laparoscopic approach. Demographic, clinical, and intraoperative variables, complications, mortality and length of stay were collected. Both groups, open and laparoscopic surgery patients, were compared. RESULTS: The final study sample was 250 patients, 190 (76%) men and 60 (24%) women, mean age 54 years (SD ± 16.7). In 129 cases (52%), the surgical approach was open, and in 121 (48%) it was laparoscopic. Grades III-V complications of the Clavien-Dindo Classification occurred in 23 cases (9%). Operative mortality was 1.2% (3 patients). Laparoscopically operated patients had significantly fewer complications (p = 0.001) and shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, laparoscopic approach (p = 0.025; OR:0.45-95%CI: 0.22-0.91), age (p = 0.003; OR:1.03-95%CI: 1.01-1.06), and Boey score (p = 0.024 - OR:1.71 - CI95%: 1.07-2.72), were independent prognostic factors for postoperative surgical complications. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic surgery should be considered the first-choice approach for patients with perforated peptic ulcer. It is significantly associated with fewer postoperative complications and a shorter hospital stay than the open approach.
Assuntos
Laparoscopia , Úlcera Péptica Perfurada , Feminino , Humanos , Laparoscopia/efeitos adversos , Tempo de Internação , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Úlcera Péptica Perfurada/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The application of intraoperative radiation therapy to the tumor bed after resection of pancreatic cancer has been shown to be beneficial in the local control of the disease. The objective of this study was to evaluate the preliminary outcomes after the application of a single intraoperative dose to the tumor bed with a new intraoperative radiotherapy device (Intrabeam®) in terms of viability, safety and short-term results. METHODS: We studied 5 patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy for resectable pancreatic cancer in which a radiotherapy boost (5Gy) was intraoperatively applied to the tumoral bed using the portable Intrabeam® device, a low-energy point-source X-ray. Postoperative complications, hospital stay and mortality, recurrences and short-term survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 68 years. All patients had a T3-stage tumor and one of them N1. In 3 patients, R0 resection was performed, while R1 resection was conducted in 2. Perioperative mortality was 0%. The only complications included delayed gastric emptying and postoperative hemorrhage. There were no pancreatic fistulas. During follow-up (mean: 11.2 months), there was a relapse in the patient who had undergone R1 resection. CONCLUSIONS: The application of radiotherapy with the Intrabeam® device in selected patients has not resulted in increased perioperative morbidity or mortality; therefore, this is a safe procedure for the treatment of resectable cancer.