Laparoscopic Gastric Resection for Gastric Cancer: Is Intracorporeal Anastomosis Necessary?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: In surgical dissection, laparoscopic approach and open techniques do not differ significantly, but there is still no consensus on how anastomosis should be performed in both cardia and distal gastric tumors. Anastomosis can be performed by laparoscopy-assisted mini-laparotomy or by intracorporeal suture techniques. In this study, we aim to present our four years of clinical experience and short-term surgical results from 133 cases in order to evaluate the necessity of laparoscopic anastomosis. METHODS: This study was approved by Ethics Committee (No: 1-8-19, date: 14/01/2019). Patients who underwent curative resection with the diagnosis of gastric adenocarcinoma between January 2014 and January 2018 in the Ankara University Surgical Oncology Department were included in the study. RESULTS: Of the 133 patients included in the study, 108 (81.2) were male and the mean age was 60.51 ± 12.0 years. The time of anastomosis was significantly longer in patients undergoing intracorporeal anastomosis (p = 0.021). The incidence of anastomotic leakage was significantly higher in the group undergoing intracorporeal anastomosis (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: We think that esophagojejunostomy and jejunojejunostomy anastomoses in patients undergoing total gastrectomy should be performed with intracorporeal techniques in terms of benefit risk assessment. We believe that it is more feasible to continue the case with mini laparotomy when anastomosis is reached in patients who are planned to have gastrojejunostomy. In addition, in terms of intracorporeal anastomoses and advanced laparoscopic techniques, intracorporeal anastomoses performed in gastric cancer surgery for a laparoscopist who has completed the learning curve do not appear to be very different in terms of anastomosis safety.

Splenic infarction as a complication of celiac artery thromboembolism: an unusual cause of abdominal pain / 대한외과학회지

Splenic infarction is a relatively uncommon diagnosis and this clinical presentation can mimic other causes of acute abdominal pain. Cardiologic and hematologic disorders are common reasons for this entity. There have been a few series and single case reports of splenic infarction published in peer-reviewed medical journals. We report a 53-year-old patient who had splenic infarction caused by celiac artery thromboembolism. The importance of this case, without any etiological predisposing factors, is that this kind of clinical situation should be considered in the differential diagnosis of abdominal pain.

Splenic infarction as a complication of celiac artery thromboembolism: an unusual cause of abdominal pain / 대한외과학회지

Splenic infarction is a relatively uncommon diagnosis and this clinical presentation can mimic other causes of acute abdominal pain. Cardiologic and hematologic disorders are common reasons for this entity. There have been a few series and single case reports of splenic infarction published in peer-reviewed medical journals. We report a 53-year-old patient who had splenic infarction caused by celiac artery thromboembolism. The importance of this case, without any etiological predisposing factors, is that this kind of clinical situation should be considered in the differential diagnosis of abdominal pain.

Subsite distribution of colorectal carcinoma and implications for screening; a retrospective audit of 1771 cases.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Recent epidemiologic studies mentioned a shift from left to right in colorectal cancer. We searched our hospital database to try to give an insight into the patient characteristics and also optimize the screening programs in our country. METHODOLOGY: A total of 1771 colorectal cancer patients were identified and analyzed. Patients' gender, age, operation dates, tumor localization, resectability and T stage of the lesions, were recorded and comparisons were made. Second step of the study consisted of a questionnaire including 6 questions that were asked to 278 physicians to document current physician attitudes and practices regarding colorectal cancer screening, and to formulate appropriate interventions. RESULTS: Most of our patients were older than 51 in our study and a higher percentage of cases had sigmoid and rectal cancer (67%). The chronological trends in anatomic subsite distribution of colorectal cancer showed that by changing years when left colon cancer percentage was increasing, rectum cancer percentage was decreasing. There was no age-dependent variation in the topographical distribution of colorectal cancer by changing years. Also there was no relation between sex differences and subsite distribution when the whole group was taken into consideration. Specialist physicians had a poor understanding of colorectal cancer screening and lacked the responsibility of the screening programs. CONCLUSIONS: Data presented in this article do not support a progressive left to right shift in the distribution of colorectal carcinoma. Screening with fecal occult blood testing and sigmoidoscopy seems appropriate. Physician education may be an important step in screening before public awareness.