Minimally Invasive Surgery for Duodenal Obstructions, 10 Years of Experience in a Single Center.

PURPOSE: Duodenal obstructions are one of the most common causes of upper intestinal obstruction during the neonatal period. Minimally invasive surgical treatment is considered highly complex. We report our experience with 43 patients treated using this method. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study at our institution from January 2013 to May 2023, including patients classified as having upper intestinal obstructions. All patients received preoperative diagnoses based on clinical findings, radiography, and abdominal ultrasound. Laparoscopic surgery was performed on all patients. RESULTS: We included 43 patients diagnosed with duodenal obstruction (DO) in our study after reviewing the medical records at our hospital for cases meeting this diagnosis. The laparoscopic Kimura procedure was performed on 31 patients (72%), while duodenotomy and anastomosis following the Heineke-Mikulicz principle were performed on 9 patients (21%). In the remaining 3 patients (7%), a side-to-side duodeno-duodeno anastomosis was conducted. Annular pancreas was the most common cause of duodenal obstruction in our series, affecting 21 patients (49%). Type I duodenal atresia was observed in 17 patients (40%), while type III atresia was present in 3 patients (7%), and type II atresia in 2 patients (4%). One case required conversion to open surgery due to concomitant jejunoileal atresia. The only reported complication was partial anastomotic dehiscence, which occurred in two patients (4%). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for managing duodenal obstruction (DO) has proven to be both feasible and safe, yielding comparable outcomes to the traditional open approach; its effectiveness can be significantly enhanced through appropriate training. Furthermore, the growing availability of duodenal atresia simulators offers valuable opportunities to refine laparoscopic skills and apply them effectively. Better outcomes and fewer complications are expected with further experience and an increased number of cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Case series with no comparison group.

Sensor orientation and other factors which increase the blast overpressure reporting errors.

This study compared the response of the wearable sensors tested against the industry-standard pressure transducers at blast overpressure (BOP) levels typically experienced in training. We systematically evaluated the effects of the sensor orientation with respect to the direction of the incident shock wave and demonstrated how the averaging methods affect the reported pressure values. The evaluated methods included averaging peak overpressure and impulse of all four sensors mounted on a helmet, taking the average of the three sensors, or isolating the incident pressure equivalent using two sensors. The experimental procedures were conducted in controlled laboratory conditions using the shock tube, and some of the findings were verified in field conditions with live fire charges during explosive breaching training. We used four different orientations (0°, 90°, 180°, and 270°) of the headform retrofitted with commonly fielded helmets (ACH, ECH, Ops-Core) with four B3 Blast Gauge sensors. We determined that averaging the peak overpressure values overestimates the actual dosage experienced by operators, which is caused by the reflected pressure contribution. This conclusion is valid despite the identified limitation of the B3 gauges that consistently underreport the peak reflected overpressure, compared to the industry-standard sensors. We also noted consistent overestimation of the impulse. These findings demonstrate that extreme caution should be exercised when interpreting occupational blast exposure results without knowing the orientation of the sensors. Pure numerical values without the geometrical, training-regime specific information such as the position of the sensors, the distance and orientation of the trainee to the source of the blast wave, and weapon system used will inevitably lead to erroneous estimation of the individual and cumulative blast overpressure (BOP) dosages. Considering that the 4 psi (~28 kPa) incident BOP is currently accepted as the threshold exposure safety value, a misinterpretation of exposure level may lead to an inaccurate estimation of BOP at the minimum standoff distance (MSD), or exclusion criteria.