[Abdominal pain after a generalized tonic-clonic seizure]. / Buikpijn na een gegeneraliseerd tonisch-clonisch insult.

BACKGROUND: Skeletal injury following a generalized tonic-clonic insult is rare. It is often missed as patients are unable to adequately express their symptoms in the post-ictal state, the apparent lack of a trauma prior to the insult and the low a priori chance. However, in order to ensure adequate treatment, timely diagnosis of these injuries is of great importance. CASE DESCRIPTION: A 58-year old man had ongoing abdominal pain following a generalized tonic-clonic insult. Radiographic imaging showed these complaints to be the result of a bilateral acetabulum fracture, due to the forceful muscular contractions during the previous insult. Even though it is very rare and is only described 30 times worldwide, it is a potentially life-threatening injury. The patient was transferred to a specialized trauma center where he underwent open reduction and internal fixation. He recovered fully. CONCLUSION: It is important to be aware of possible musculoskeletal injury following a generalized tonic-clonic insult, as timely diagnosis is of great importance for adequate treatment and the patients' prognosis.

Short- and Long-term Outcomes After Laparoscopic Emergency Resection of Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: A Nationwide Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of laparoscopy for emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer remains unclear, especially regarding impact on survival. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine short- and long-term outcomes after laparoscopic versus open emergency resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer. DESIGN: This observational cohort study compared patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection to those who underwent open emergency resection between 2009 and 2016 by using 1:3 propensity-score matching. Matching variables included sex, age, BMI, ASA score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, cT4, cM1, multivisceral resection, small-bowel distention on CT, and subtotal colectomy. SETTING: This was a nationwide, population-based study. PATIENTS: Of 2002 eligible patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer, 158 patients who underwent laparoscopic emergency resection were matched with 474 patients who underwent open emergency resection. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention was laparoscopic versus open emergency resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were 90-day mortality, 90-day complications, permanent stoma, disease recurrence, overall survival, and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Intentional laparoscopy resulted in significantly fewer 90-day complications (26.6% vs 38.4%; conditional OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39-0.87) and similar 90-day mortality. Laparoscopy resulted in better 3-year overall survival (81.0% vs 69.4%; HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.37-0.79) and disease-free survival (68.3% vs 52.3%; HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87). Multivariable regression analyses of the unmatched 2002 patients confirmed an independent association of laparoscopy with fewer 90-day complications and better 3-year survival. LIMITATIONS: Selection bias was the limitation that cannot be completely ruled out because of the retrospective nature of this study. CONCLUSIONS: This population-based study with propensity score-matched analysis suggests that intentional laparoscopic emergency resection might improve outcomes in patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer compared to open emergency resection. Management of those patients in the emergency setting requires proper selection for intentional laparoscopic resection if relevant expertise is available, thereby considering other alternatives to avoid open emergency resection (ie, decompressing stoma). See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 . RESULTADOS A CORTO Y LARGO PLAZO DESPUS DE LA RESECCIN LAPAROSCPICA DE EMERGENCIA EN CNCER DE COLON IZQUIERDO OBSTRUCTIVO UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIN A NIVEL NACIONAL: ANTECEDENTES:El papel de la laparoscopia en la resección de emergencia en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo sigue sin estar claro, especialmente con respecto al impacto en la supervivencia.OBJETIVO:El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar los resultados a corto y largo plazo después de la resección de emergencia laparoscópica versus abierta en cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo.DISEÑO:Estudio observacional de cohortes comparó pacientes que se sometieron a resección de laparoscópica de emergencia versus resección abierta de emergencia entre 2009 y 2016, mediante el uso de emparejamineto por puntaje de propensión 1: 3. Las variables emparejadas incluyeron sexo, edad, IMC, puntaje ASA, cirugía abdominal previa, ubicación del tumor, cT4, cM1, resección multivisceral, distensión del intestino delgado en la TAC y colectomía subtotal.ENTORNO CLINICO:A nivel nacional, basado en la población.PACIENTES:De 2002 pacientes elegibles con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo, 158 pacientes con resección laparoscópica s de emergencia e emparejaron con 474 pacientes con resección abierta de emergencia.INTERVENCIONES:Resección laparoscópica de emergencia versus abierta.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Las medidas primarias fueron la mortalidad a 90 días, complicaciones a 90 días, estoma permanente, recurrencia de la enfermedad, supervivencia general y supervivencia libre de enfermedad.RESULTADOS:La laparoscopia intencional dió como resultado significativamente menos complicaciones a los 90 días (26,6 % vs 38,4 %, cOR 0,59, IC del 95 %: 0,39-0,87) y una mortalidad similar a los 90 días. La laparoscopia resultó en una mejor supervivencia general a los 3 años (81,0 % vs 69,4 %, HR 0,54, IC del 95 % 0,37-0,79) y supervivencia libre de enfermedad (68,3 % vs 52,3 %, HR 0,64, IC del 95 % 0,47-0,87). Los análisis de regresión multivariable de los 2002 pacientes no emparejados confirmaron una asociación independiente de la laparoscopia con menos complicaciones a los 90 días y una mejor supervivencia a los 3 años.LIMITACIONES:El sesgo de selección no se puede descartar por completo debido a la naturaleza retrospectiva de este estudio.CONCLUSIONES:Estudio poblacional con análisis emparejado por puntaje de propensión sugiere que la resección laparoscópica de emergencia intencional podría mejorar los resultados a corto y largo plazo en pacientes con cáncer de colon izquierdo obstructivo en comparación con resección abierta de emergencia, lo que justifica la confirmación en estudios futuros. El manejo de esos pacientes en el entorno de emergencia requiere una selección adecuada para la resección laparoscópica intencional si se dispone de experiencia relevante, considerando así otras alternativas para evitar la resección abierta de emergencia (es decir, ostomia descompresiva). Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B972 . (Traducción- Dr. Francisco M. Abarca-Rendon & Dr. Fidel Ruiz Healy).

Predicting Mortality Within 90 Days of First Intervention in Patients With Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Acute resection for left-sided obstructive colon carcinoma is thought to be associated with a higher mortality risk than a bridge-to-surgery approach using decompressing stoma or self-expandable metal stent, but prediction models are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the influence of treatment strategy on mortality within 90 days from the first intervention in patients presenting with left-sided obstructive colon carcinoma. DESIGN: This was a national multicenter cohort study that used data from a prospective national audit. SETTINGS: The study was performed in 75 Dutch hospitals. PATIENTS: Patients were included if they underwent resection with curative intent for left-sided obstructive colon carcinoma between 2009 and 2016. INTERVENTIONS: First intervention was either acute resection, bridge to surgery with self-expandable metallic stent, or bridge to surgery with decompressing stoma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measure was 90-day mortality after the first intervention. Risk factors were identified using multivariable logistic analysis. Subsequently, a risk model was developed. RESULTS: In total, 2395 patients were included, with the first intervention consisting of acute resection in 1848 patients (77%), stoma as bridge to surgery in 332 patients (14%), and stent as bridge to surgery in 215 patients (9%). Overall, 152 patients (6.3%) died within 90 days from the first intervention. A decompressing stoma was independently associated with lower 90-day mortality risk (HR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.094-0.62). Other independent predictors for mortality were age, ASA classification, tumor location, and index levels of serum creatinine and C-reactive protein. The constructed risk model had an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.81-0.87). LIMITATIONS: Only patients who underwent surgical resection were included. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment strategy had a significant impact on 90-day mortality. A decompressing stoma considerably lowers the risk of mortality, especially in older and frail patients. The developed risk model needs further external validation. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B975 .PREDICCIÓN DE LA MORTALIDAD A 90 DÍAS POSTERIORES A LA PRIMERA CIRUGÍA EN PACIENTES CON CÁNCER DE COLON OBSTRUCTIVO DEL LADO IZQUIERDOANTECEDENTES:Se cree que la resección aguda para el carcinoma de colon obstructivo del lado izquierdo está asociada con un mayor riesgo de mortalidad que un enfoque puente a la cirugía que utiliza un estoma de descompresión o un stent metálico autoexpandible, pero faltan modelos de predicción.OBJETIVO:Determinar la influencia de la estrategia de tratamiento sobre la mortalidad dentro de los 90 días desde la primera intervención utilizando un modelo de predicción en pacientes que presentan carcinoma de colon obstructivo del lado izquierdo.DISEÑO:Un estudio de cohorte multicéntrico nacional, utilizando datos de una auditoría nacional prospectiva.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se realizó en 75 hospitales holandeses.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron los pacientes que se sometieron a una resección con intención curativa de un carcinoma de colon obstructivo del lado izquierdo entre 2009 y 2016.INTERVENCIONES:La primera intervención fue resección aguda, puente a cirugía con stent metálico autoexpandible o puente a cirugía con estoma descompresor.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACIÓN:La principal medida de resultado fue la mortalidad a los 90 días después de la primera intervención. Los factores de riesgo se identificaron mediante análisis logístico multivariable. Posteriormente se desarrolló un modelo de riesgo.RESULTADOS:En total se incluyeron 2395 pacientes, siendo la primera intervención resección aguda en 1848 (77%) pacientes, estoma como puente a la cirugía en 332 (14%) pacientes y stent como puente a la cirugía en 215 (9%) pacientes. En general, 152 pacientes (6,3%) fallecieron dentro de los 90 días posteriores a la primera intervención. Un estoma de descompresión se asoció de forma independiente con un menor riesgo de mortalidad a los 90 días (HR: 0,27, IC: 0,094-0,62). Otros predictores independientes de mortalidad fueron la edad, la clasificación ASA, la ubicación del tumor y los niveles índice de creatinina sérica y proteína C reactiva. El modelo de riesgo construido tuvo un área bajo la curva de 0,84 (IC: 0,81-0,87).LIMITACIONES:Solo se incluyeron pacientes que se sometieron a resección quirúrgica.CONCLUSIONES:La estrategia de tratamiento tuvo un impacto significativo en la mortalidad a los 90 días. Un estoma descompresor reduce considerablemente el riesgo de mortalidad, especialmente en pacientes mayores y frágiles. Se desarrolló un modelo de riesgo, que necesita una mayor validación externa. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B975 . (Traducción-Dr. Ingrid Melo ).

[Treatment of left-sided obstructive colon cancer]. / Behandeling van linkszijdig obstructief coloncarcinoom.

In patients ≥ 70 years of age with left-sided obstructive colon cancer, emergency resection should be avoided in the curative setting, and a bridge to surgery technique with Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) or a decompressing stoma should be applied. In patients < 70 years of age, all three options (emergency resection, SEMS or a decompressing stoma) can be considered as curative intent treatment. If the construction of a decompressing stoma and SEMS placement are both suitable bridging options, the low chance of having a stoma at any time in case of SEMS, and avoiding the risk of SEMS-related complications (i.e. perforation) in case of a stoma might be an important factor within a shared decision making process. SEMS is the preferred treatment in the palliative setting, with decompressing stoma as a valid alternative. Contraindications for SEMS are unavailability of required expertise, technical unsuitability, and when patients are under anti-angiogenic therapy (e.g. bevacizumab).

Decompressing Stoma a s Bridge to Elective Surgery is an Effective Strategy for Left-sided Obstructive Colon Cancer: A National, Propensity-score Matched Study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this population-based study was to compare decompressing stoma (DS) as bridge to surgery (BTS) with emergency resection (ER) for left-sided obstructive colon cancer (LSOCC) using propensity-score matching. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Recently, an increased use of DS as BTS for LSOCC has been observed in the Netherlands. Unfortunately, good quality comparative analyses with ER are scarce. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with nonlocally advanced LSOCC between 2009 and 2016 in 75 Dutch hospitals, who underwent DS or ER in the curative setting, were propensity-score matched in a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcome measure was 90-day mortality, and main secondary outcomes were 3-year overall survival and permanent stoma rate. RESULTS: Of 2048 eligible patients, 236 patients who underwent DS were matched with 472 patients undergoing ER. After DS, more laparoscopic resections were performed (56.8% vs 9.2%, P < 0.001) and more primary anastomoses were constructed (88.5% vs 40.7%, P < 0.001). DS resulted in significantly lower 90-day mortality compared to ER (1.7% vs 7.2%, P = 0.006), and this effect could be mainly attributed to the subgroup of patients over 70 years (3.5% vs 13.7%, P = 0.027). Patients treated with DS as BTS had better 3-year overall survival (79.4% vs 73.3%, hazard ratio 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.65) and fewer permanent stomas (23.4% vs 42.4%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide propensity-score matched study, DS as a BTS for LSOCC was associated with lower 90-day mortality and better 3-year overall survival compared to ER, especially in patients over 70 years of age.

Comparison of Decompressing Stoma vs Stent as a Bridge to Surgery for Left-Sided Obstructive Colon Cancer.

Importance: Bridge to elective surgery using self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is a debated alternative to emergency resection for patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer because of oncologic concerns. A decompressing stoma (DS) might be a valid alternative, but relevant studies are scarce. Objective: To compare DS with SEMS as a bridge to surgery for nonlocally advanced left-sided obstructive colon cancer using propensity score matching. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national, population-based cohort study was performed at 75 of 77 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 4216 patients with left-sided obstructive colon cancer treated from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2016, were identified from the Dutch Colorectal Audit and 3153 patients were studied. Additional procedural and intermediate-term outcome data were retrospectively collected from individual patient files, resulting in a median follow-up of 32 months (interquartile range, 15-57 months). Data were analyzed from April 7 to October 28, 2019. Exposures: Decompressing stoma vs SEMS as a bridge to surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary anastomosis rate, postresection presence of a stoma, complications, additional interventions, permanent stoma, locoregional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Propensity score matching was performed according to age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, prior abdominal surgery, tumor location, pN stage, cM stage, length of stenosis, and year of resection. Results: A total of 3153 of the eligible 4216 patients were included in the study (mean [SD] age, 69.7 [11.8] years; 1741 [55.2%] male); after exclusions, 443 patients underwent bridge to surgery (240 undergoing DS and 203 undergoing SEMS). Propensity score matching led to 2 groups of 121 patients each. Patients undergoing DS had more primary anastomoses (104 of 121 [86.0%] vs 90 of 120 [75.0%], P = .02), more postresection stomas (81 of 121 [66.9%] vs 34 of 117 [29.1%], P < .001), fewer major complications (7 of 121 [5.8%] vs 18 of 118 [15.3%], P = .02), and more subsequent interventions, including stoma reversal (65 of 113 [57.5%] vs 33 of 117 [28.2%], P < .001). After DS and SEMS, the 3-year locoregional recurrence rates were 11.7% for DS and 18.8% for SEMS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.28; P = .20), the 3-year disease-free survival rates were 64.0% for DS and 56.9% for SEMS (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.61-1.33; P = .60), and the 3-year overall survival rates were 78.0% for DS and 71.8% for SEMS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.48-1.22; P = .26). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that DS as bridge to resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is associated with advantages and disadvantages compared with SEMS, with similar intermediate-term oncologic outcomes. The existing equipoise indicates the need for a randomized clinical trial that compares the 2 bridging techniques.

Critical appraisal of oncological safety of stent as bridge to surgery in left-sided obstructing colon cancer; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This meta-analysis aims to determine the long-term oncological outcomes of SEMS as bridge to surgery (BTS) versus emergency surgery (ES). A systematic search without restrictions was conducted, and all studies comparing SEMS with ES reporting on long-term outcomes were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the appropriate tools. Twenty-one comparative studies were selected, reporting on 1919 patients. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference regarding three- and five-year overall survival (OR = 0·85 (0·68-1·08) and OR = 1·04 (0·68-1·57), respectively), disease-free survival (OR = 0·96 (0·73-1·26) and OR = 0·86 (0·54-1·36), respectively) and local recurrence rate (OR = 1·32 (0·78-2·23)). Permanent stomas were significantly lower in the SEMS group (OR 0·49 (0·32-0·74)). Sensitivity analysis on three-year survival showed opposite outcomes, with a trend towards worse survival in the SEMS group when only RCTs are taken into account. In conclusion, when in experienced hands, SEMS placement as BTS seems oncologically safe.

Efficacy of loop colostomy construction for acute left-sided colonic obstructions: a cohort analysis.

PURPOSE: Acute primary resection as treatment for left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO) is notorious for its high morbidity and mortality rates. Both stenting and loop colostomy construction can serve as a bridge to surgery, hereby avoiding the high morbidity and mortality rates associated with emergency resections. This study aims to investigate the safety of a loop colostomy in patients presenting with acute LSCO. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients that received a loop colostomy for LSCO between 2003 and 2015 was performed. Primary outcomes were mortality, major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades III-IV) and minor morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grades I-II). RESULTS: One hundred forty-six patients presenting with acute LSCO received a diverting colostomy. After colostomy construction, mortality occurred in four patients (2.7%) and major complications were reported in 20 patients (13.7%). In 61 patients, the diverting colostomy served as a palliative measure, because of metastatic disease or unfitness for major surgery. The remaining 85 patients all underwent delayed resection, resulting in an overall mortality, major morbidity and minor morbidity of 6.9% (n = 6), 14.0% (n = 12) and 26.7% (n = 23), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Diverting colostomy construction is a minimally invasive and safe treatment option for LSCO. It can serve as a definite palliative measure, as well as a bridge to elective surgery. A diverting colostomy as a bridge to surgery might even be a valid alternative for emergency resections, since mortality and morbidity rates following colostomy construction and delayed resection appear lower than reported outcomes following primary resection.

Deviating colostomy construction versus stent placement as bridge to surgery for malignant left-sided colonic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Acute colonic decompression using a deviating colostomy (DC) or a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) has been shown to lead to fewer complications and permanent stomas compared to acute resection in elderly patients with malignant left-sided colonic obstruction (LSCO). However, no consensus exists on which decompression method is superior, especially in patients treated with curative intend. This retrospective study therefore aimed to compare both decompression methods in potentially curable LSCO patients. METHODS: All LSCO patients treated with curative intent between 2004 and 2013 in two teaching hospitals were retrospectively identified. In one institution, a DC was the standard of care, whereas in the other all patients were treated with SEMS. RESULTS: In total, 88 eligible LSCO patients with limited disease and curative treatment options were included; 51 patients had a SEMS placed and 37 patients a DC constructed. All patients eventually underwent a subsequent elective resection. In sum, 235 patients were excluded due to benign or inoperable disease. No significant differences were found for hospital stay, morbidity, disease-free and overall survival and mortality. Major complications were seen in 13/51 (25.5 %) patients in the SEMS group and were mostly due to stent dysfunction (n = 7). Also, one stent-related perforation occurred. Major complications occurred in 4/37 (10.8 %) patients in the DC group, including abdominal sepsis (n = 3) and wound dehiscence (n = 1). Long-term complication rate was significantly higher in the DC group (29.7 vs. 9.8 %, p = 0.01), mainly due to a high incisional hernia rate. Fewer patients had a temporary colostomy following elective resection after SEMS placement (62.2 vs. 17.6 %, p < 0.01). Permanent colostomy rate was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: SEMS and DC are both effective decompression methods for curable LSCO patients with comparable short- and long-term oncological outcomes; however, more surgical procedures are performed after DC due to an increased number of temporary colostomies and incisional hernia repairs.

Acute resection versus bridge to surgery with diverting colostomy for patients with acute malignant left sided colonic obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, no consensus exists on the best treatment strategy for acute malignant left-sided colonic obstruction. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare the outcomes following the two surgical treatment options; primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery. METHODS: This systematic review was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to minimize risk of bias. Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched for all relevant literature. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the MINORS criteria. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were calculated using random effects models. RESULTS: Eight comparative studies were included, reporting on 2424 patients; 1973 patients were treated with primary resection and 451 patients with colostomy construction followed by elective resection. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between both treatment groups regarding 30-day mortality and morbidity (OR = 0.77, 95%CI 0.3-1.96 and OR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.51-1.13, respectively). However, patients treated with a colostomy followed by elective resection had significantly more primary anastomoses constructed and were less likely to be left with a permanent colostomy (OR = 0.17, 95%CI 0.11-0.26 and OR = 0.22, 95%CI 0.11-0.46, respectively). CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides an overview of all available literature on primary resection versus colostomy creation as bridge to surgery in patients with acute LSCO. Keeping the limitations of this study in mind, we conclude that a diverting colostomy as bridge to surgery is a safe and valid alternative for primary resection.

Fcγ receptor antigen targeting potentiates cross-presentation by human blood and lymphoid tissue BDCA-3+ dendritic cells.

The reactivation of human cytomegalovirus (HCMV) poses a serious health threat to immune compromised individuals. As a treatment strategy, dendritic cell (DC) vaccination trials are ongoing. Recent work suggests that BDCA-3(+) (CD141(+)) subset DCs may be particularly effective in DC vaccination trials. BDCA-3(+) DCs had however been mostly characterized for their ability to cross-present antigen from necrotic cells. We here describe our study of human BDCA-3(+) DCs in elicitation of HCMV-specific CD8(+) T-cell clones. We show that Fcgamma-receptor (FcγR) antigen targeting facilitates antigen cross-presentation in several DC subsets, including BDCA-3(+) DCs. FcγR antigen targeting stimulates antigen uptake by BDCA-1(+) rather than BDCA-3(+) DCs. Conversely, BDCA-3(+) DCs and not BDCA-1(+) DCs show improved cross-presentation by FcγR targeting, as measured by induced release of IFNγ and TNF by antigen-specific CD8(+) T cells. FcγR-facilitated cross-presentation requires antigen processing in both an acidic endosomal compartment and by the proteasome, and did not induce substantial DC maturation. FcγRII is the most abundantly expressed FcγR on both BDCA-1(+) and BDCA-3(+) DCs. Furthermore we show that BDCA-3(+) DCs express relatively more stimulatory FcγRIIa than inhibitory FcγRIIb in comparison with BDCA-1(+) DCs. These studies support the exploration of FcγR antigen targeting to BDCA-3(+) DCs for human vaccination purposes.