[Use of vascular endostapler in surgery of the lower rectum]. / Impiego dell'endostapler vascolare nella chirurgia del retto basso.

A practical and effective method for rapid and bloodless preparation of the rectum using endovascular stapler devices during low anterior resection, or abdominal-perineal excision, is described. This method is presented as an effective means for easily dividing the anterior and lateral attachment of the rectum. The application of this technique is the absence of intraoperative bleeding related to injury of middle hemorrhoidal vessels, with minimal risk of autonomic pelvic nerve damage. An additional factor relevant in the choice of this technique, is the easier possibility to perform rectal dissection of an oncologically adequate tumor clearance from the margin of rectal tumor and with complete radical transection of the lateral ligaments fastly proceeding with the downward mobilization of the rectum close to the pelvic side walls, between the parietal and visceral layer of the pelvic fascia.

Effective vascular endostapler techniques in hepatic resection.

The purpose of this report is to describe the technique of liver resection using an endovascular stapling device. A total of 31 patients underwent major hepatic resections with stapling techniques. The authors have used various approaches to portal structures and hepatic veins with the application of a vascular endostapler device. The specific techniques of different hepatectomies are described and illustrated. There were no deaths. A minor complication (biliary fistula) occurred in one patient, related to binary leak from parenchymal transection. No complications directly attributable to stapler ligations of portal pedicle or hepatic veins were observed. Stapling techniques can be helpful in major hepatic resection procedures. The vascular endostapler can significantly reduce both portal vein and hepatic vein closure time and may expedite the transection of the liver, eliminating the risk of slipped ligature following simple ligation.

[Totally implantable venous access systems. Analysis of complications]. / Sistemi di accesso venoso totalmente impiantabili. Analisi delle complicanze.

UNLABELLED: Totally implantable central venous access devices (Port-a-Cath, PaC) allow better treatment of cancer patients, with safe administration of chemotherapeutic agents, and are well accepted by the patients. The aim of the present paper is to analyze the complications of the different implant techniques on the basis of a personal experience of 92 central venous access devices. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 92 PaC (Port-a-Cath, Pharmacia: Celsite Braun) have been implanted in 88 patients between August 1992 and June 1995 for cancer treatment. Age ranged between 19 and 79 years (median 52 years), 56 were male and 32 women. PaC have been implanted by percutaneous cannulation of the subclavian vein, with Seldinger technique, in 34 cases; by venous cutdown respectively on the cephalic vein in 46 cases, the jugular vein in 7 cases, the basilar vein in 4 and the saphenous vein in 1 case. Four patients experienced a double implant. In 84 cases the implant was done under local anesthesia, while in 8 required general anesthesia, during operation for the primary neoplasm. RESULTS: A total of 7 complications were experienced (7.6%, 7/92): 4 sepsis and 3 mechanical. No cases of pnx were observed. Sepsis occurred after 29, 45, 64, 401 days of implantation respectively, and culture demonstrated S. aureus in 2 cases, and E. coli and Klebsiella oxytoca in 1 case each. Mechanical complication comprehends 2 cases of catheter dislodgement and 1 case of port rotation. No complications were noticed in case of implant during surgery for primary cancer (8 cases). In 7 cases the procedure has been converted from cephalic vein cutdown to percutaneous cannulation of the subclavian vein due to anatomic reasons (13.2%, 7/53). Five PaC have been explanted for complications. DISCUSSION: On the basis of the personal experience we think that PaC are of easy implant, with few complications and of good acceptance from the patients. We prefer venous cutdown on cephalic vein as implant technique because of avoidance of pnx or bleeding complications. Percutaneous puncture of subclavian vein is useful for implantation during major surgery, because less time consuming, and in case of anatomical anomalies fo the cephalic vein. Basilic vein cutdown has been utilized exclusively for esthetic reason in young people, to avoid the scar in the upper thoracic region. Alternative implant techniques has been employed in special conditions, such as catheter position in the inferior v.cava, or early in our experience (internal jugular vein). A total of 7 complication have been reported (7.6%), 4 sepsis and 3 mechanical (2 dislodgement, 1 rotation). Sepsis were not related to implant technique, presenting on day 29, 45, 64 and 401 respectively; all required the explant of the PaC as a treatment. Mechanical complications are related to surgical technique; all required re-exploration with 1 explant and 2 reposition of the PaC. In PaC positioning during surgery for primary cancer (8 cases) no morbidity has been reported. All but the 5 PaC explanted were functioning until patient's need; maximum length reported is 42 months.

Alternative insertion sites for permanent central venous access devices.

Permanent central venous access devices (PCVAD) are used widely in the management of chronically ill patients, particularly in neoplastic diseases. The standard approach consists of positioning the catheter in the superior vena cava (SVC) either using subclavian or internal jugular vein puncture, or cephalic or external jugular vein cut-down, with the port implanted in a subcutaneous pouch of the thoracic region. Alternative insertion sites could be used in selected cases. In our experience, consisting of 158 PCVAD, 12 cases required a different insertion site: six cases of an SVC catheter and port on the forearm using a basilic vein cut-down, and six cases of an inferior vena cava (IVC) catheter and port in the abdominal region using a great saphenous vein cut-down. Comparing standard to alternative approaches, we observed a total morbidity rate of 8.9% and 8.3%, respectively (P=NS), while the explant rate was 5.4% vs 8.3% (P=0.1). Our data show non-significant differences in morbidity and explant rates between the two groups of patients. Alternative insertion sites for the PCVAD implant seem to be a valid possibility in the management of chronically ill patients.