RESUMEN
Although the use of laparoscopic surgery is increasing, controversy still surrounds its application for malignant conditions. Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) are less demanding in terms of lymphadenectomy, meaning that laparoscopic resection might have a more defined benefit when compared with open resection. To the best of our knowledge, no randomized study exists that compares the laparoscopic and open resection of GISTs. The current study aimed to examine the relevant literature by means of a systematic review. A systematic literature search was performed individually by two authors, in which three independent databases were searched using specific search-terms. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened, as well as references to relevant articles, in order to comprise a comprehensive list of studies. Data were extracted using a detailed pre-agreed spreadsheet. Studies were evaluated according to the modified MINORS criteria. A total of 10 studies were included in the present review, yielding a total of 14 entries. The majority of studies reported significantly improved perioperative outcomes for the laparoscopic approach, including improved duration of operation, blood loss and length of hospital stay. Only four studies reported long-term outcomes and findings that were controversial, with some studies detecting no statistically significant differences, one reporting improved and one reporting worse disease-free and overall survival for the laparoscopic group. Three studies were deemed to be good quality, two of which had not reported significantly different long-term outcomes, while the third had reported significantly improved outcomes in the open resection group. While there is a clear benefit for performing laparoscopic surgery in patients with GIST with regards to perioperative outcomes, when it comes to long-term oncological outcomes, uncertainty over its application remains. The lack of randomized trials, as well as the poor reporting of retrospective studies, limits the amount of evidence that is currently available. Laparoscopic surgery for GIST is certainly safe, feasible and likely cost-effective; however, further studies are required to inform on whether this technique is superior to open resection.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that external hemorrhage from proximal leg amputations and junctional sites represents 19.2% of potentially survivable lethal hemorrhage. A recent effort to address this problem has resulted in the development of various junctional tourniquets. This study assessed and compared two Tactical Combat Casualty Care Committee-approved junctional tourniquets, the Combat Ready Clamp (CRoC) and the Junctional Emergency Treatment Tool (JETT), to contribute to their future development and to better inform on the decisions for device selection by military units. Aims of the study also were to provide concrete feedback and suggestions on how to effectively apply the devices. METHODS: Via a specific questionnaire, 75 international attendees of the International Special Training Centre Medical Branch Special Operations Forces Advanced Medical First Responder course evaluated the CRoC and the JETT on different parameters. Both devices were tested objectively through timed applications aimed at stopping unilateral lower-extremity distal pulse on 33 of these 75 students, verified by palpation by Medical Branch instructors. Subjective and objective data were examined for mutual correlation. RESULTS: Users ranked the JETT higher than the CRoC on all parameters, including effectiveness on the battlefield (ρ < .001), ease of use (ρ < .039), speed of application (ρ < .001), and not slipping in use (ρ < .001), although the difference on other parameters such as effectiveness in hemorrhage control was not statistically significant. Considering all parameters together, the JETT was evaluated as a better device than the CRoC (ρ < .001). The application time measurement suggested that the JETT was applied faster (by approximately 15 seconds on average; ρ < .001). The fastest CRoC and JETT applications were 37 and 29 seconds, respectively. The JETT was not easier to use or more effective than the CRoC; there was a 9% failure rate of the JETT occluding a unilateral common femoral artery. The JETT's efficacy in occluding a unilateral common femoral artery can be compromised if the device's pelvic binder is not sufficiently tightened prior to threading the T-handled pad. The CRoC's application time can be drastically reduced if the device is kept assembled and firm pressure is immediately asserted upon placement on the intended location through the vertical arm, then threading the device. Both devices were applied safely; no adverse effects were reported during or after application. CONCLUSION: Even though the JETT might be preferred by military medical providers, the CRoC still has merits. As both devices proved to occlude the arterial flow in no less than 54 seconds on average, they could be used to supplement direct pressure and wound packing, the latter two still being considered the immediate actions for inguinal bleeding control. Considering that the CRoC and the JETT can be applied in as little as 37 and 29 seconds, respectively, users should be effectively trained and entirely proficient on either device to justify their election as the primary countermeasure to hemorrhage not amenable to regular tourniquets.
