ABSTRACT
Spontaneous splenic rupture (SSR), a rare but potentially life-threatening condition, typically occurs in the absence of trauma or underlying splenic disease. This report aims to contribute to the limited body of knowledge regarding its occurrence, diagnosis, and management in this demographic. We describe the case of a 20-year-old patient with no significant medical history who presented with acute abdominal pain and hypovolemic shock. Imaging revealed an unexpected splenic rupture without any preceding trauma or identifiable risk factors. The patient's clinical progression, diagnostic challenges, and therapeutic approach are discussed in detail. This case underscores the importance of considering SSR in the differential diagnosis of acute abdomen in young patients, even in the absence of predisposing factors. We review the literature to highlight the epidemiology, possible etiologies, diagnostic modalities, and treatment options for SSR. The peculiarities of managing such cases in young patients are also discussed, emphasizing a tailored approach to balance the risks of conservative management against surgical intervention. In conclusion, SSR, though rare in young patients, should be a diagnostic consideration in cases of unexplained acute abdomen. Early recognition and appropriate management are crucial for favorable outcomes. This case adds to the existing literature by providing insight into the presentation and management of this condition in a young, healthy individual, thereby aiding in enhancing clinical vigilance and patient care.
ABSTRACT
Standard bariatric surgeries include biliopancreatic diversion (BPD), sleeve gastrectomy (SG), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and adjustable gastric banding (AGB). Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is currently favored due to safety, efficacy, and shorter operation time. However, previous literature shows 75.6% weight regain post LSG. Introducing Laparoscopic band sleeve gastrectomy (LBSG) to maintain pouch size is proposed to improve outcomes and reduce weight regain. This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of LSG vs. LBSG in obese patients. A comprehensive search strategy was executed to identify pertinent literature comparing LBSG and LSG in obese patients. Eligible studies underwent independent screening, and pertinent data were systematically extracted. The analysis employed pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, each accompanied by their respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our systematic review and meta-analysis included 15 studies encompassing 3929 patients. Regarding body mass index (BMI), at six, 12, and 24 months, no substantial differences were found between LBSG and LSG groups (p < 0.05). Still, at 36 months, LBSG exhibited significantly lower BMI than LSG (MD = -2.07 [-3.84, -0.29], p = 0.02). Excess Weight Loss (EWL) favored LBSG at 12, 24, and 36 months with MD of 3.30 [0.42, 6.18], 4.13 [1.44, 6.81], and 18.43 [9.44, 27.42], p = 0.02, 0.003, < 0.00001, respectively). Operative time did not significantly differ between the procedures (MD = 2.95, 95%CI [-0.06, 5.95], p = 0.05). Resolution of comorbidities, overall complications, post-operative bleeding, reflux, and early complications did not significantly differ between LBSG and LSG. However, LBSG showed higher post-operative regurgitation than LSG (RR = 2.38, 95%CI [1.25, 4.54], p = 0.008). LBSG showed a substantial decrease in BMI at three-year follow-up and higher EWL at one, two, and three years. However, LBSG procedures exhibited a higher incidence of post-operative regurgitation symptoms than LSG. No substantial differences were noted in BMI at six, 12, or 24 months, EWL at six months, operative time, bleeding, reflux, or overall complications.
ABSTRACT
Introduction Surgical procedures present substantial healthcare costs, patient discomfort, and potential adverse outcomes. In response, enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have emerged as comprehensive, evidence-based preoperative care pathways designed to optimize preoperative, intra-operative, and postoperative management. These protocols incorporate various interventions, such as preoperative education, nutritional optimization, minimally invasive techniques, multimodal pain management, early mobilization, and patient engagement. Despite their global success and growing popularity, the adoption and influence of ERAS protocols in Saudi Arabia have not been extensively explored. This study aims to assess the ERAS effects on surgical outcomes and evaluate its relationship with patient satisfaction, considering factors such as cost-effectiveness and compliance in the Saudi context. Methods This cross-sectional study encompassed data collection from 1,452 patients who underwent surgical procedures such as bariatric surgery and cholecystectomy, employing systematic random sampling across multiple healthcare facilities in Saudi Arabia. Data were gathered through structured questionnaires, medical records, and cost-effectiveness analysis within the period spanning from January to August 2023. The relationship between ERAS protocol implementation, surgical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness was analyzed using statistical tests, including correlation, regression analysis, and chi-square tests. A statistical significance threshold was set at p < 0.05, and Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS, version 28.0) (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Armonk, NY) was used for data analysis. Results Among the 1,452 respondents, 1,152 (79.3%) reported the implementation of ERAS protocols during their surgical procedures. Those receiving ERAS protocols exhibited significantly lower rates of surgical complications, readmissions, and reduced dependency on pain medication (p < 0.001). Additionally, participants subjected to ERAS protocols reported significantly higher satisfaction levels based on the mean satisfaction scale score, with a p-value of less than 0.001. Conclusion The results highlight substantial improvements associated with the implementation of ERAS protocols, particularly in terms of reduced surgical site infections, shortened hospitalization periods, and decreased pain management-related complications. Moreover, ERAS protocol implementation demonstrated enhanced surgical outcomes, increased postoperative satisfaction, and overall improved recovery experiences. These findings underscore the potential benefits of integrating ERAS protocols into the surgical practices of Saudi Arabia. This research contributes to a better understanding of the advantages offered by ERAS protocols and their potential for enhancing healthcare delivery in the region.
