Trauma experience comparison of army forward surgical team surgeons at Ben Taub Hospital and Madigan Army Medical Center(2)(2).

Far forward life-saving surgical care is the mission of an army forward surgical team (FST). Trauma skill maintenance is necessary to complete that mission. A new program has been developed for FST training using the resources of a Level 1 trauma center. We sought to compare the experience of FST surgeons at a major urban trauma center with the yearly trauma experience at an army Level 2 trauma center.General surgeons of the 250th FST prospectively tabulated data for trauma patients during a September 1999 unit deployment to Ben Taub Hospital (Houston, Texas). Data collected included nature and location of injury, hospital admission, and surgical intervention. During 1999, similar data were collected at Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC) (Ft. Lewis, Washington), home station of the 250th and Level 2 trauma center since November 1998.The FST general surgeons observed 319 injuries. Of those injured, 104 were admitted and 19 underwent urgent operation. Direct participation by FST general surgeons in the operative procedures varied. In 1999, MAMC general surgeons treated 455 trauma victims in direct supervision of Army general surgery residents. Madigan Army Medical Center general surgeons admitted 304 and urgently operated on 57 trauma patients, while 107 patients were transferred to another institution for definitive management of orthopedic and nonoperative neurosurgical injuries.CONCLUSIONS:The volume of trauma surgical cases at MAMC during 1999 was 3 times that seen in the 1-month rotation at Ben Taub. General surgeons performed more trauma and abdominal surgery at MAMC with significantly more direct involvement in patient care and operative procedures. The experience of the 250th FST does not justify trauma sustainment deployments for surgeons from military trauma centers.

Current follow-up strategies after potentially curative resection of extremity sarcomas: results of a survey of the members of the society of surgical oncology.

BACKGROUND: The follow-up of patients after potentially curative resection of extremity sarcomas has significant clinical and fiscal implications. However, the ideal postoperative surveillance regimen for these uncommon neoplasms remains ill-defined. This study was designed to determine the current follow-up practices of a large, diverse group of physicians who care for sarcoma patients. METHODS: The 1592 members of the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) were surveyed regarding their follow-up practices with a detailed questionnaire mailed in 1997. Information regarding frequency of follow-up testing was requested for extremity sarcoma patients treated for cure based on 4 vignettes: low grade lesion 5 cm and high grade lesion 5 cm. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of office visits, laboratory tests and imaging studies performed annually during the first 5 years and the 10th year after surgery. RESULTS: Forty-five percent (716 of 1592) completed the survey. Of the 343 respondents who performed sarcoma surgery, 318 (93%) also provided long term postoperative follow-up for their patients. Ninety-four percent of respondents (295 of 318) were trained in general surgery and 5% (15 of 318) completed orthopedic residencies. Ninety-one percent (291 of 318) were also fellowship trained (80% in surgical oncology). Sixty-three percent (201 of 318) were in academic practice. Routine office visits and chest X-ray (CXR) were the most frequently performed items for each of the years. The frequency of office visits and CXR increased with tumor size and grade and decreased with postoperative year. Complete blood count and liver function tests were the most commonly ordered blood tests, but many respondents did not order any blood tests routinely. Imaging studies of the extremities were performed on the majority of patients with large (> 5 cm) low grade lesions and on both large and small high grade lesions during the first postoperative year. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative sarcoma surveillance strategies utilized by members of the SSO rely most heavily on office visits and CXR. Tumor grade, tumor size, and postoperative year affect surveillance intensity.

Surgical management of adrenal metastases from lung cancer.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adrenal metastases from lung cancer usually indicate systemic disease and incurability. However, a small subset of patients with isolated adrenal metastases may achieve long-term survival with aggressive surgical resection of the adrenal gland. To clarify the role of adrenalectomy for metastatic lung cancer, we undertook a review of the published literature on this topic. METHODS: The English-language medical literature was searched for papers reporting surgical resection of adrenal metastases from lung cancer. Eleven articles were retrieved and their data pooled for analysis. RESULTS: Sixty patients (including seven previously reported from our institution) formed the basis of this collective review. Thirty-two patients pooled from small series and case reports had a median survival of 24 months, and approximately one-third were 5-year survivors. Twenty-eight patients reported in two large series had a less favorable survival (approximately 14 months median survival). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical resection of isolated adrenal metastases from lung cancer appears to have a modest survival advantage over nonoperative therapy, and it occasionally results in long-term survival. However, the relatively encouraging survival results reported in the literature could be related to careful patient selection for this aggressive therapy, publication bias in favor of positive treatment outcomes, or a combination of the two. Nevertheless, the results are encouraging enough to justify further investigation of this aggressive treatment strategy. Practical guidelines for management are proposed.

Comparison of stapled and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomoses.

BACKGROUND: Esophagogastric anastomotic leaks continue to be a major source of morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy. Leaks usually result from technical errors or occult ischemia of the mobilized gastric fundus. The introduction of stapled esophagogastric anastomoses was initially very promising; leak rates appeared to be reduced. DATA SOURCES: The English language medical literature was searched for publications comparing stapled and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomoses. We reviewed data from four randomized trials and seven nonrandomized comparative studies to determine if stapling was superior to hand suturing for esophagogastric anastomoses. RESULTS: Pooled data from randomized trials comparing stapled with hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomoses showed no significant difference for leaks (stapled 9%, hand-sewn 8%, P <0.67), but a higher incidence of strictures in stapled anastomoses (stapled 27%, hand-sewn 16%, P < 0.02). In nonrandomized studies, stapled anastomoses had a lower leak rate (stapled 6%, hand-sewn 11%, P < 0.0001), but strictures were more frequent (stapled 31%, hand-sewn 16%, P < 0.0001). A major source of bias in the nonrandomized studies was the comparison of contemporary stapled experience and earlier hand-sewn experience. This bias was not present in three of seven nonrandomized studies that featured prospective data collection. Pooled data from these three studies showed no difference in anastomotic leak rate (stapled 4%, hand-sewn 6%, P < 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Stapled and hand-sewn esophagogastric anastomotic techniques have equivalent anastomotic leak rates, but strictures are more common in stapled anastomoses. Irrespective of which technique is used, surgical experience and meticulous attention to detail are required to prevent anastomotic complications. Anastomotic technical modifications alone are unlikely to eliminate the problem of leaks, since they do not address the problem of gastric fundal ischemia.

The evaluation of palpable breast masses: common pitfalls and management guidelines.

The management of a palpable breast mass starts with identification of the lesion and a suspicion of malignancy. While seemingly simple, the initial evaluation can significantly impact upon treatment options and outcomes. The management of two patients recently referred to this Institution highlights common pitfalls and technical considerations in the diagnosis and treatment of palpable breast masses. The case histories of two patients referred after open breast biopsy were examined. The English language medical literature was searched manually and by Medline for publications related to the evaluation of palpable breast masses. Imaging, diagnostic techniques and technical considerations in the management of palpable lesions were reviewed. The initial use of carefully selected diagnostic and therapeutic measures is critical in optimizing outcomes measured in improved quality of life and survival. Inappropriate choices at this first stage can have extremely negative consequences. The early evaluation of two patients highlighted these considerations. Management pitfalls included serial examination of a suspicious lesion, failure to obtain a mammogram prior to excisional biopsy and unnecessary testing. Technical problems included piecemeal excision of the tumor with positive margins, use of a drain, closure of deep tissues with dimpling of the breast, and incision placement in a location that subsequently necessitated mastectomy. Careful adherence to the clinical and operative principles of breast cancer management optimizes outcomes in the evaluation of palpable breast masses.