Parastomal hernia prevention with an intraperitoneal prophylactic 3D-funnel mesh: review of the technique and middle-term results.

PURPOSE: Parastomal hernia (PH) stands out as a prevalent complication following end colostomies, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Various surgical strategies, predominantly involving prophylactic mesh deployment, have been explored with variable outcomes. This study details our experience and mid-term outcomes utilizing a funnel-shaped mesh. METHODS: A single-center, prospective, non-randomized, observational study examined consecutive patients undergoing colorectal surgery with end colostomy, incorporating a 3D-funnel mesh from January 2019 to December 2021 (PM group). A historical cohort of patients with end colostomy without prophylactic mesh served as the comparison (C group). Postoperative morbidity within 30 days was documented, and clinical examinations and radiological tests were employed for parastomal hernia diagnosis during follow-up. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients participated, with thirty-four in the PM group and thirty-eight in the C group. The PM group experienced 16 postoperative complications, unrelated to the mesh, while the C group recorded 20 complications (p = 0.672). Median follow-up was 22.06 months for the PM group and 63.18 months for the C group. The PM group exhibited a lower parastomal hernia incidence during follow-up (8.8%) compared to the C group(68.4%) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic use of a 3D-funnel mesh appears effective in reducing parastomal hernia incidence in the short and mid-term, without an associated increase in postoperative morbidity.

¿Es segura y eficaz la colecistostomía percutánea en la colecistitis aguda? Análisis de los efectos adversos asociados a la técnica / Is percutaneous cholecystostomy safe and effective in acute cholecystitis? Analysis of adverse effects associated with the technique

IntroducciónEl objetivo principal de nuestro estudio es valorar la seguridad y la eficacia de la colecistostomía percutánea para el tratamiento de la colecistitis aguda determinando la incidencia de efectos adversos que presentan los pacientes sometidos a este procedimiento.Material y métodoEstudio observacional con inclusión consecutiva de todos los pacientes con diagnóstico de colecistitis aguda durante 10 años. La variable principal estudiada ha sido la morbilidad (efectos adversos) recogida de forma prospectiva. Seguimiento mínimo de un año de los pacientes sometidos a colecistostomía percutánea.ResultadosDe 1.223 pacientes ingresados por colecistitis aguda, 66 pacientes han precisado colecistostomía percutánea. El 21% de estos han presentado algún efecto adverso, con un total de 22 efectos adversos. Tan solo 5 de estos efectos, presentados por 5 pacientes (7,6%), han podido ser atribuidos al propio drenaje vesicular. La mortalidad asociada a la técnica es del 1,5%. Tras la colecistostomía un tercio de los pacientes (22 pacientes) han sido sometidos a colecistectomía. Se ha realizado intervención quirúrgica urgente por fracaso del tratamiento percutáneo en 2 pacientes, y diferida en otros 2 pacientes por recidiva del proceso inflamatorio. El resto de los pacientes colecistectomizados han sido intervenidos de forma programada pudiéndose llevar a cabo el procedimiento de forma laparoscópica en 16 pacientes (72,7%) ConclusiónConsideramos la colecistostomía percutánea como técnica segura y eficaz por relacionarse con una baja incidencia de morbimortalidad, debiéndose considerar como alternativa puente o definitiva en aquellos pacientes no tributarios de colecistectomía urgente tras fracaso del tratamiento conservador con antibiótico (AU)

IntroductionThe main objective of our study is to assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous cholecystostomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis, determining the incidence of adverse effects in patients undergoing this procedure.Material and methodObservational study with consecutive inclusion of all patients diagnosed with acute cholecystitis for 10 years. The main variable studied was morbidity (adverse effects) collected prospectively. Minimum one-year follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy.ResultsOf 1223 patients admitted for acute cholecystitis, 66 patients required percutaneous cholecystostomy. 21% of these have presented some adverse effect, with a total of 22 adverse effects. Only 5 of these effects, presented by 5 patients (7.6%), could have been attributed to the gallbladder drainage itself. The mortality associated with the technique is 1.5%. After cholecystostomy, one third of the patients (22 patients) have undergone cholecystectomy. Urgent surgery was performed due to failure of percutaneous treatment in 2 patients, and delayed in another 2 patients due to recurrence of the inflammatory process. The rest of the cholecystectomized patients underwent scheduled surgery, and the procedure could be performed laparoscopically in 16 patients (72.7%).ConclusionWe consider percutaneous cholecystostomy as a safe and effective technique because it is associated with a low incidence of morbidity and mortality, and it should be considered as a bridge or definitive alternative in those patients who do not receive urgent cholecystectomy after failure of conservative antibiotic treatment (AU)

Is percutaneous cholecystostomy safe and effective in acute cholecystitis? Analysis of adverse effects associated with the technique.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective of our study is to assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous cholecystostomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis, determining the incidence of adverse effects in patients undergoing this procedure. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Observational study with consecutive inclusion of all patients diagnosed with acute cholecystitis for 10 years. The main variable studied was morbidity (adverse effects) collected prospectively. Minimum one-year follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy. RESULTS: Of 1223 patients admitted for acute cholecystitis, 66 patients required percutaneous cholecystostomy. 21% of these have presented some adverse effect, with a total of 22 adverse effects. Only 5 of these effects, presented by 5 patients (7.6%), could have been attributed to the gallbladder drainage itself. The mortality associated with the technique is 1.5%. After cholecystostomy, one third of the patients (22 patients) have undergone cholecystectomy. Urgent surgery was performed due to failure of percutaneous treatment in 2 patients, and delayed in another 2 patients due to recurrence of the inflammatory process. The rest of the cholecystectomized patients underwent scheduled surgery, and the procedure could be performed laparoscopically in 16 patients (72.7%). CONCLUSION: We consider percutaneous cholecystostomy as a safe and effective technique because it is associated with a low incidence of morbidity and mortality, and it should be considered as a bridge or definitive alternative in those patients who do not receive urgent cholecystectomy after failure of conservative antibiotic treatment.

How to Learn a Complex Endoscopic Procedure: Knots in Transanal Endoscopic Surgery: Different Skill Among Surgeons.

PURPOSE: The intrarectal suture is considered a high technically complex procedure. The study's objectives were to assess the feasibility of making an intrarectal knot, through an in vitro study and assessing whether the video tutorial facilitates learning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A detailed description of the technique. A comparative observational cross-sectional study in surgeons with no previous experience in intrarectal knots. RESULTS: Twenty-one of these 32 participants passed the intrarectal knot test without video tutorial (T1) (65.6%), and 26 (81.2%) after the video tutorial (T2) (P=0.26). The mean time taken to tie the knot fell from 74 seconds (SD=46) in T1 to 41 seconds (SD=41) in T2 (P<0.001). At T1, 26 participants (81.3%) described the technique as difficult, but only 7 (21.9%) at T2 (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Performing the intrarectal knot suture is feasible. Despite the technical difficulty, the video tutorial is sufficient for surgeons to learn the technique.

Is percutaneous cholecystostomy safe and effective in acute cholecystitis? Analysis of adverse effects associated with the technique. / ¿Es segura y eficaz la colecistostomía percutánea en la colecistitis aguda? Análisis de los efectos adversos asociados a la técnica.

INTRODUCTION: The main objective of our study is to assess the safety and efficacy of percutaneous cholecystostomy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis, determining the incidence of adverse effects in patients undergoing this procedure. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Observational study with consecutive inclusion of all patients diagnosed with acute cholecystitis for 10 years. The main variable studied was morbidity (adverse effects) collected prospectively. Minimum one-year follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous cholecystostomy. RESULTS: Of 1223 patients admitted for acute cholecystitis, 66 patients required percutaneous cholecystostomy. 21% of these have presented some adverse effect, with a total of 22 adverse effects. Only 5 of these effects, presented by 5 patients (7.6%), could have been attributed to the gallbladder drainage itself. The mortality associated with the technique is 1.5%. After cholecystostomy, one third of the patients (22 patients) have undergone cholecystectomy. Urgent surgery was performed due to failure of percutaneous treatment in 2 patients, and delayed in another 2 patients due to recurrence of the inflammatory process. The rest of the cholecystectomized patients underwent scheduled surgery, and the procedure could be performed laparoscopically in 16 patients (72.7%). CONCLUSION: We consider percutaneous cholecystostomy as a safe and effective technique because it is associated with a low incidence of morbidity and mortality, and it should be considered as a bridge or definitive alternative in those patients who do not receive urgent cholecystectomy after failure of conservative antibiotic treatment.

Management of intra- and postoperative complications during TEM/TAMIS procedures: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) is a safe procedure and the rates of intra- and postoperative complications are low. The information in the literature on the management of these complications is limited, and so their importance may be either under- or overestimated (which may in turn lead to under- or overtreatment). The present article reviews the most relevant series of TEM procedures and their complications and describes various approaches to their management. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of the literature, including TEM series of more than 150 cases each. We analyzed the population characteristics, surgical variables and intraoperative and postoperative complications. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 1043 records were found. After review, 1031 were excluded. The review therefore includes 12 independent cohorts of TEM procedures with a total of 4395 patients. The rate of perforation into the peritoneal cavity was 5.1%, and conversion to abdominal approach was required in 0.8% of cases. The most frequent complications were acute urinary retention (AUR, 4.9%) and rectal bleeding (2.2%). Less common complications included abscesses (0.99%) and rectovaginal fistula (0.62%). Mortality rates were low, with a mean value of 0.29%. CONCLUSIONS: Awareness and knowledge of TEM complications and their management can play an important role in their treatment and patient safety. Here, we present a review of the most important TEM series and their complication rates and describe various approaches to their management.

Urinary catheter in colorectal surgery: current practices and improvements in order to allow prompt removal. A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the publication of the guidelines for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS), attitudes to urinary catheter (UC) management vary widely in colorectal surgery. The aim of the present study was to define current practices in UC management in colorectal surgery. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study carried out in March-April 2019, based on the responses to a survey administered to public hospitals in Catalonia. Respondents were asked about their observance of ERAS programs, the percentage of laparoscopic procedures performed, and the time of UC withdrawal in surgery of the colon and rectum. RESULTS: Forty-three of 45 hospitals contacted eventually responded (95.6%). As two hospitals reported that they did not perform colorectal surgery, the study is based on the results from 41 centers. Thirty-five (85.4%) reported following ERAS programs; 30 (73.2%) have coloproctology units, and 39 (95.1%) perform more than 70% of colorectal surgeries by laparoscopy. In colon surgery, 27 (65.9%) remove the UC at 24 h, and 12 (29.3%) on day 2 or day 3. In rectal surgery, 17 (58.6%) remove the UC on day 2-3. CONCLUSIONS: Management of UC in colon and rectal surgery varies widely. There is clearly room for improvement in UC management, but needs to be thoroughly assessed in randomized multicenter studies.

Correction to: Esogastro-Pleuro-Bronchial Fistula: An Unusual Complication After Sleeve Gastrectomy.

Due to a Production error Figs. 1 and 2 were omitted from the original article.

Cómo poner en marcha y desarrollar un estudio multicéntrico prospectivo, controlado y aleatorizado / How to start and develop a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial

El objetivo de este artículo es ilustrar cómo poner en marcha y desarrollar un estudio multicéntrico prospectivo, controlado y aleatorizado. Por ello, lo primero que se necesita es crear una idea que genere una hipótesis y un objetivo principal. La búsqueda bibliográfica nos permite ver su relevancia clínica y las evidencias publicadas. Además, hay que plantearse si el estudio es viable económicamente y si puede ser completado en un período menor a 4 años. Una vez ideado el estudio multicéntrico, para ejecutarlo se debe redactar un protocolo (según la guía Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT 2013]). En él se recogerán el tipo de diseño, el tamaño muestral y los centros que participarán. La aleatorización es clave en el diseño. Si puede ser aleatorizado, se recomienda utilizar la guía Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), si no, la Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs (TREND). Cuando el protocolo es aprobado por el Comité Ético de Investigación Clínica del hospital, hay que darle visibilidad. Es por eso que se recomienda su registro en ClincalTrials.gov y su publicación en revistas indexadas. Para el inicio del estudio, se requiere buscar fuentes de financiación. Estas permiten tener una base de datos on line, que permiten aleatorizar al momento y mantener el registro al día desde cualquier centro. Por último, hay que destacar que es imprescindible la motivación. La multicentricidad solo se entiende si todos los centros participan. Así que informar de resultados y dar ánimos cada 1-3 meses (en forma de newsletter) es una manera de conseguir un buen funcionamiento del estudio

Our main goal is to describe how to start and develop a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. The first step is to have an idea that will become the hypothesis and a main objective. A bibliographic search should be done to check for clinical interest and originality. Moreover, the study must be feasible and should be finished within 4 years. In order to start the multicenter study, a protocol should be written (in accordance with the SPIRIT guidelines Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), including the design type, sample size and participating hospitals. Randomization is key to the design and, therefore, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines must be followed. However, if the study cannot be randomized, the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs) guidelines are recommended. When the protocol is approved by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Investigation of the hospital, we ought to create visibility. It is suggested to register the trial on ClincalTrials.gov and submit its publication to indexed magazines. Financial resources are necessary to execute the study and maintain an online database. This allows the registry to be updated and accessible to all the participants in the study. What is more, randomization can be done immediately. And last, but not least, is motivation. Multicentricity equals to participation of all the chosen medical centers. Updating and motivating them by sending a newsletter every 1-3 months keeps participants engaged in the study

How to start and develop a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. / Cómo poner en marcha y desarrollar un estudio multicéntrico prospectivo, controlado y aleatorizado.

Our main goal is to describe how to start and develop a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. The first step is to have an idea that will become the hypothesis and a main objective. A bibliographic search should be done to check for clinical interest and originality. Moreover, the study must be feasible and should be finished within 4 years. In order to start the multicenter study, a protocol should be written (in accordance with the SPIRIT guidelines Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), including the design type, sample size and participating hospitals. Randomization is key to the design and, therefore, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines must be followed. However, if the study cannot be randomized, the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs) guidelines are recommended. When the protocol is approved by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Investigation of the hospital, we ought to create visibility. It is suggested to register the trial on ClincalTrials.gov and submit its publication to indexed magazines. Financial resources are necessary to execute the study and maintain an online database. This allows the registry to be updated and accessible to all the participants in the study. What is more, randomization can be done immediately. And last, but not least, is motivation. Multicentricity equals to participation of all the chosen medical centers. Updating and motivating them by sending a newsletter every 1-3 months keeps participants engaged in the study.