A retrospective comparative study of hemorrhoidal artery ligation versus ligasure hemorrhoidectomy for the third degree hemorrhoidal disease.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhoidal disease (HD) is the most common disease of the anorectal region. Excision of pathological hemorrhoidal structures by providing bipolar energy transfer with Ligasure, which is basically an electrosurgical device, is one of the treatment methods Ligasure hemorrhoidectomy (LH). In another method applied for the first time by Morinaga, the vascular plexus is provided by Doppler-guided ligation of the hemorrhoidal arteries (ADHL). In our study, we aimed to compare and evaluate the results of these two minimally invasive treatment methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with ADHL and LH for HD in our Surgery Clinic were included in the study. Demographic data, complaints, number of hemorrhoidal structures, location, complications, operation time, bleeding during and after the operation, length of hospital stay, postoperative pain scoring, and postoperative results were evaluated from the patient files. RESULTS: The number of patients included in the study was 91. While 54 patients were treated with ADHL (group 1), 37 patients (group 2) were treated with LH. Although the gender distribution between the groups was similar, there was male predominance in both groups. The mean operative time was shorter in group 1. The number of packages was 2.7 in group 1 and 2.4 in group 2. The mean hospital stay was 1.5 days in the ADHL-treated group, compared to. 3.05 days in the LH group. In the postoperative period, bleeding was not observed after an average of 1.4 days in group 1, while this period was 4.9 days in group 2. While recurrence occurred in 4 patients in the ADHL group, recurrence developed in 3 patients who underwent LH. CONCLUSION: ADHL and LH techniques have advantages and disadvantages over each other. Although the ADHL technique seems to be superior to LH in terms of post-defecation pain and shorter hospital stay, prospective randomized controlled studies are needed to determine which method should be chosen in which patient.

Do we need mesh fixation at the laparoscopic hernia repair?

OBJECTIVE: With the development of laparoscopic treatment, widespread use of laparoscopy has become inevitable for the treatment of inguinal hernias, which is one of the most common ailments in surgical practice. Fixing or not fixing the mesh during laparoscopic repair remains a debate. In our study, we aimed to compare patients with and without mesh fixation in terms of postoperative pain, recurrence, complications, hospitalization and return to social life. METHOD: The surgical technique to be performed was randomly determined, 81 patients whose data were kept prospectively and evaluated retrospectively were included in the study. Total extraperitoneal repair (TEP) was performed in all patients. While the mesh was not fixed in 50 patients, it was fixed with 2 tackers in 31 patients. RESULTS: When the two groups of patients were compared, the group without mesh fixation was found to be superior in terms of postoperative pain, length of hospital stay and return to social life. There was no difference between the 2 groups in terms of complications and recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In the light of these findings, it is seen that TEP hernia repair can be performed safely without mesh fixation, although prospective randomized studies are needed.

A comparison of off-pump and on-pump coronary bypass surgery in patients with low EuroSCORE.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare postoperative short-term, mid-term and long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery performed with or without cardiopulmonary bypass in patients with a low European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation score. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 478 consecutive low risk patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery between January 2002 and December 2007 was performed. Of these patients, 83 cases had undergone on-pump and 395 cases had undergone off-pump coronary bypass surgery. The patients were assessed in terms peri-operative complications, survival, mortality due to cardiac events, need for rehospitalization and repeated coronary revascularization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of preoperative characteristics, except for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The number of distal anastomosis per patient was significantly lower in the off-pump group than in the on-pump group (2.66 ± 0.74 vs. 3.21 ± 0.85, p < 0.001). Early mortality rates were similar in both groups (1.01% for the off-pump group and 1.2% for the on-pump group, p = 0.687). Neurological complications were significantly lower in the off-pump group than in the on-pump group (1.1% vs. 6%, p = 0.01). The mean follow-up period was 80 ± 19.1 months (range, 3-112 months). The need for revascularization during long-term follow-up was 10.1% in the off-pump group and 7.2% in the on-pump group (p = 0.416). The 5-year survival was 95.2 ± 1.1% and 95.5 ± 2.7% in the off-pump and on-pump groups, respectively (p = 0.8), whereas the 7-year survival was 91.9 ± 1.6% and 84.7 ± 6.8% in the off-pump and on-pump groups, respectively (p = 0.274). The 5-year revascularization-free period was 89.5 ± 1.6% and 89.7 ± 3.5% in the off-pump and on-pump groups, respectively (p = 0.785). The 7-year revascularization-free period was 71.1 ± 3.1% and 73.5 ± 7.3% in the off-pump and on-pump groups, respectively (p = 0.075). The 7-year event-free survival was 80.1 ± 2.2% and 73.4 ± 7.3% in the off-pump and on-pump groups, respectively (p = 0.377). CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that off-pump cardiac surgery had advantages over on-pump cardiac surgery in the short term; however, both interventions had similar mid-term and long-term outcomes, when performed in low-risk patient.