Survival and outcomes after laparoscopic versus open curative resection for colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have shown that open and laparoscopicsurgery for resection of colonic cancers produce similar short- and long-term results, but no data have been reported from Saudi Arabia. OBJECTIVE: Compare 3-year disease-free and overall survival after laparoscopic versus open curative resection for potentially curable colon cancer. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Tertiary academic hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data of patients who underwent curative resection for potentially curable colon cancer using the laparoscopic or open approach at three tertiary care centers during the period 2000-2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall and disease-free 3-year survival were the primary endpoints. Secondary endpoints included conversion rate, duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, rate of wound infection, resumption of bowel function, number of lymph nodes retrieved, adequacy of resection and rate of recurrence. Risk factors for recurrence, including complete mesocolic excision, were assessed. SAMPLE SIZE: 721. RESULTS: Patient and tumor characteristics were similar in the two groups except for ASA class ( P<.01), weight ( P<.05) and tumor stage ( P<.05). Over a median follow-up of 46 months, the 3-year overall survival was 76.7% for open resection and 90.3% for laparoscopic colon resection ( P<.05). The 3-year disease-free survival was 55.3% for open colon resection and 64.9% for laparoscopic colon resection ( P=.0714). CONCLUSION: Overall and disease-free survival after the laparoscopic approach for curative resection of colon cancer is comparable to the open approach. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective design and the possibility of selection bias. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None.

Accuracy of seizure semiology obtained from first-time seizure witnesses.

BACKGROUND: Little is known of how accurately a first-time seizure witness can provide reliable details of a semiology. Our goal was to determine how accurately first-time seizure witnesses could identify key elements of an epileptic event that would aid the clinician in diagnosing a seizure. METHODS: A total of 172 participants over 17 years of age, with a mean (sd) of 33.12 (13.2) years and 49.4% female, composed of two groups of community dwelling volunteers, were shown two different seizure videos; one with a focal seizure that generalized (GSV), and the other with a partial seizure that did not generalize (PSV). Participants were first asked about what they thought was the event that had occurred. They then went through a history-taking scenario by an assessor using a battery of pre-determined questions about involvement of major regions: the head, eyes, mouth, upper limbs, lower limbs, or change in consciousness. Further details were then sought about direction of movement in the eyes, upper and lower limbs, the side of limb movements and the type of movements in the upper and lower limbs. Analysis was with descriptive statistics and logistic regression. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-two (71.4%) identified the events as seizure or epilepsy. The accuracy of identifying major areas of involvement ranged from 60 to 89.5%. Horizontal head movements were significantly more recognized in the PSV, while involvement of the eyes, lateralization of arm movement, type of left arm movement, leg involvement, and lateralization of leg movement were significantly more recognized in the GSV. Those shown the GSV were more likely to recognize the event as "seizure" or "epilepsy" than those shown the PSV; 78 (84.8%) vs 44 (55.7%), (OR 0.22, p < 0.0001). Younger age was also associated with correct recognition (OR 0.96, P 0.049). False positive responses ranged from 2.5 to 32.5%. CONCLUSION: First-time witnesses can identify important elements more than by chance alone, and are more likely to associate generalized semiologies with seizures or epilepsy than partial semiologies. However, clinicians still need to navigate the witness's account carefully for additional information since routine questioning could result in a misleading false positive answer.