RESUMO
Objectives: To evaluate the surgical volume, surgical outcomes, and the evolving role of gynecologic oncologists in peripartum hysterectomies (PPH). Methods: We conducted an IRB-approved retrospective chart review of PPH cases performed at our institution from June 1, 2014, to June 30, 2021. Clinical-pathologic information was ed into a REDCap database. All analyses were conducted using STATA 17. Results: A total of 109 cases were performed over the 7-year period. Gynecologic oncologists (GYO) involvement in the cases increased from 33% in 2014 to 80% in 2021. The mean age was 36 (range: 23-47) years. Most patients were White (81/109, 74.3%), and the median BMI was 30.7 (range: 21-57) kg/m2. Surgical indications included placenta accreta syndrome (PAS) in 84 (77%) cases, uterine atony in ten (9.2%), uterine rupture in three (2.8%), malignancy in five (4.6%), and hemorrhage other than atony in seven cases (6.4%). Intraoperative complications included bladder injury (or intentional dissection) in eight (7.3%), ureter injury in four (3.7%), vascular injury in three (2.8%), and femoral pseudoaneurysm in one (0.9%) of the cases. Postoperative complications included urinary tract infection in 11 (10.1%), nerve injury in one (0.9%), surgical site infection in 13 (11.2%), and venous thromboembolism in five (4.6%) cases. Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) usage started in 2019 with one case followed by six cases in 2020 (31.6%) and 3/16 cases in the first half of 2020 (15.8%). A higher REBOA usage in 2020 corresponded with blood products shortages during the COVID crisis.[Formula presented] Conclusions: Overall volume and complexity of peripartum hysterectomy are increasing. This trend is likely driven by an increased incidence of placenta accreta syndrome cases. Gynecologic oncologists are increasingly delegated as primary surgeons in many institutions. Fellowship training programs should strongly consider training in peripartum hysterectomy for trainees.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Rectal perforations due to foreign body impalement are infrequently encountered in practice. Accidental or intentional foreign body insertions pose a diagnostic challenge to surgeons and put them in demanding circumstances for successful extraction. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of a 60-year-old male with alleged history of accidental foreign body insertion into the rectum. Radiographs showed a linear metallic foreign body with crooked end. Computed Tomography (CT) with rectal contrast revealed contrast extravasation indicating anterior wall perforation of upper rectum. Patient was taken urgently for exploration and foreign body removal. Intra-operatively, bladder was injured inadvertently. Primary repair of enterotomy and loop sigmoid-ostomy was done besides bladder repair. Patient tested positive for COVID-19. Patient was observed in critical care unit for two days. Post-operative period was unremarkable apart from midline abdominal wound gape for which secondary closure was done. Patient was discharged with urinary catheter in-situ. Patient followed-up with a normal cystourethrogram and a well-functioning stoma. Stoma closure after two months was uneventful. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: A thorough history and clinical examination is required and one should raise a high index of suspicion of perforation in patients with rectal foreign bodies, which should be managed appropriately and promptly to prevent sepsis and multi-organ dysfunction. Inadvertent bladder injuries are common with lower-midline incisions. However, give good results when repaired suitably. CONCLUSION: The rationale behind this report is to explicate the complexity and hurdles in the surgical management of rectal foreign bodies causing impalement injury.