Tumores primarios benignos de la pared torácica: resultados del tratamiento quirúrgico / Primary benign chest wall tumors: results of surgical treatment

BACKGROUND: We undertook this study to describe the clinical characteristics of primary benign chest wall tumors and to evaluate the results of surgical treatment. METHODS: We included patients with primary benign chest wall tumors who underwent surgical resection at the Instituto Nacional de Cancerología from January 1990 to December 2002. All patients had histological confirmation of benign tumor. Descriptive analysis was carried out. RESULTS: There were 17 patients, nine women (53%), with an average age of 35.1 years (interval 16-66 years). The most frequent tumor was chondroma in seven cases (41%), followed by aponeurotic-muscle fibromatosis in five (30%) and the remaining five patients had other tumor types. All patients were subject to thoracic wall resection, including at least one rib in each patient. In three patients the sternum was resected (17.6%), the clavicle in two (11.7%), thoracic vertebrae in one (5.9%) and associated structures in four patients (23.5%). In eight patients (47%) the thoracic wall was reconstructed with marlex mesh, whereas the remaining patients required no reconstruction. Of the 17 patients, 16 are alive without disease and one presented delayed recurrence with an aponeurotic-muscle fibromatosis requiring a new thoracic wall resection. One patient presented with respiratory complications and died after 42 days due to thoracic wall instability. Average follow-up time was 103 months. CONCLUSIONS: Primary benign chest wall tumors are locally aggressive and must be treated with wide resection of the thoracic wall. In addition, surgical reconstruction with prosthetic materials and/or myocutaneous flaps is done prior to resection, for stability of the thorax when the localization is anterior or lateral.

Abdomen abierto vs cerrado en peritonitis grave por traumatismo: Estudio comparativo / Open vs. Closed Abdomen in Acute Peritonitis: A comparative Study

Introducción: el abdomen abierto es una alternativa de manejo que, sin embargo no está exento de complicaciones. Se evaluó de forma comparativa el manejo con abdomen abierto (AA) contra el cerrado (AC) en el tratamiento de pacientes con peritonitis grave por lesión traumática. Material y métodos: se realizó un estudio observacional, retrospectivo, longitudinal y comparativo, incluyó los pacientes con diagnóstico de peritonitis grave por traumatismo abdominal manejados entre 1998 y2000. Se dividieron en dos grupos, de acuerdo al manejo con AA o AC. Se compararon edad, sexo, tipo de traumatismo, gravedad de la lesión, morbilidad y mortalidad. Resultados: se manejaron 12 pacientes con AA, los cuales presentaron mayor tiempo de hospitalización y 24 con AC, que a su vez presentaron una mayor gravedad de lesión. No existieron diferencias estadísticas en los demás parámetros, incluyendo complicaciones y mortalidad. Sin embargo, los pacientes manejados con AA presentaron complicaciones más frecuentemente. Discusión: el uso del AA no mejoró la morbilidad y mortalidad de los pacientes en los que se usó, a pesar de que presentaron lesiones menos graves que los manejados con AC.

Introduction: Open abdomen is a management alternative that, however, is not exempt from complications. We evaluated, in a comparative manner, the handling with open abdomen (OA) against closed abdomen (CA) in treatment of patients with severe peritonitis for traumatic lesion. Material and methods: We carried out an observational, retrospective, longitudinal, and comparative study. It included patients managed with diagnosis severe peritonitis due to abdominal trauma between 1998 and 2000. They were divided into two groups, according to management with OA or CA. We compared age, sex, trauma type, severity of lesion, morbility and mortality. Results: 12 patients were managed with OA, which presented longer hospitalization and 2 4 with CA who in turn presented a greater lesion severity. There were statistical differences in other parameters, including complications and mortality. However, patients managed with OA frequently presented more complications. Discussion: OA does not improve morbility and mortality of patients, although they presented less severe lesions that those managed with CA.