Management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors: experience from an Italian hospital.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumors are malignancies originating from stromal/mesenchymal tissues, most commonly in the stomach and small intestine, although they can be located everywhere in the gastrointestinal tract. Diagnosis is based on histological and immunohistochemical examination, and these rare tumors are characterized by c-kit (CD117) staining. Complete removal of the tumor is often curative in localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors and is always recommended. Clinically, their behavior is difficult to predict, and mitotic count and tumor size seem to be the most effective prognostic factors. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical presentation and course, surgical management and pathological features of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated in our institution from 1995 to 2003. Twenty-two patients were enrolled in the study, and all of them underwent surgery. There were two perioperative deaths, and global morbidity was about 13%. Nineteen patients were followed (mean, 31 months): 4 patients had disease progression/recurrence and died, and one patient experienced a local recurrence and was reoperated with a curative intent; 14 patients were disease free. Our experience shows that histological and immunohistochemical examinations are fundamental for a definitive diagnosis and to assess the risk of aggressive behavior. Moreover, our results confirm that in stromal tumors complete surgical resection remains the mainstay of treatment in localized gastrointestinal stromal tumors, although the recurrence rate is relatively high. It is conceivable that treatment and prognosis of metastatic and non-resectable gastrointestinal stromal tumors, as well as the adjuvant treatment of high-risk, radically excised gastrointestinal stromal tumors will be strongly impacted by the c-kit target therapy.

[Laparoscopic management of small-bowel obstruction]. / La laparoscopia nell'occlusione intestinale del tenue.

Laparoscopy is not generally accepted as an effective, advantageous alternative to formal laparotomy for abdominal emergencies. Its use in patients with previous surgery and intestinal obstruction is often debatable. A retrospective study was performed to analyse the results of the laparoscopic approach for acute small-bowel obstruction in terms of efficacy and safety. From January 2000 to December 2003, 44 non-consecutive patients underwent laparoscopic surgery for radiologically documented small-bowel obstruction. Thirty-nine (89%) had undergone previous abdominal operations (mean number of laparotomies: 2; range 1-5). Twelve were men and 32 women (mean age: 57 years; range 13-91). We retrospectively reviewed the patient data, analysing operative time, need for accessory incision or conversion, length of hospital stay, and intraoperative and postoperative morbidity and mortality. The aetiology was established in 40 patients (91%), and the procedures were completed laparoscopically in 28/44. Mean operative time was 58 min (range 25-160). Six patients required an accessory target incision and 10 patients were converted to formal laparotomy. The reasons for conversion were extent of adhesions (n = 3), problems with laparoscopic view (n = 2), gangrenous bowel (n = 2), locally advanced colon cancer (n = 1), haemoperitoneum (n = 1), and diffuse peritonitis (n = 1). The mean hospital stay was 6 days (range 2-28). Postoperative mortality and morbidity were 2% and 16%, respectively. In conclusion, this study suggest that laparoscopy should be considered early in the clinical course of patients presenting with acute small-bowel obstruction. In most patients definitive treatment is possible, effective and safe, thus justifying the early laparoscopic approach.

[Operative laparoscopy in the management of perforated peptic ulcer]. / La laparoscopia operativa nella gestione delle ulcere peptiche perforate.

The aim of this retrospective study was to assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of the laparoscopic approach in the management of perforated peptic ulcers. From January 1997 to December 2002, all patients referred to our community hospital for abdominal surgical emergencies were routinely managed by laparoscopic surgery. A review was carried out on 39 consecutive patients suffering from perforated peptic ulcers with or without generalised peritonitis. The study population comprised 24 male and 15 female patients, aged 30 to 94 years (mean age: 62 +/- 18). Laparoscopic repair was attempted in all patients. Laparoscopy afforded the correct diagnosis in all cases. Laparoscopic peritoneal washout (irrigation and suction of the entire abdominal cavity) with simple suture of the perforation proved successful in 34 patients. An additional omental patching was performed in 15 of these cases. Conversion to conventional open surgery was necessary in 5 patients. The morbidity and mortality rates were 13% and 10%, respectively. The mean operative time was 77 minutes (range: 40-120) and the mean hospital stay 9 days (range: 3-22). Laparoscopic repair of perforated ulcers is technically feasible but requires sound experience in laparoscopic abdominal emergencies. This study shows that the mini-invasive procedure is safe and effective, offering a valid alternative to traditional laparotomy.