ABSTRACT
The percentage of geriatric patients treated in intensive care units continues to increase, comprising up to 30%. Age per se is not of great relevance for the outcome of intensive care treatment. Functional status and geriatric syndromes are crucial for prognosis. Frailty and delirium are very important and should be screened using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), respectively. Furthermore, age-physiological organ changes as well as multimorbidity and associated polypharmacy play an important role. The latter should be assessed at the time of admission. Another goal of intensive care treatment of geriatric patients is to maintain and improve the nutritional status, which can be assessed with the help of an established tool (e.g. NRS 2002). In the treatment of critically ill geriatric patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), frailty is also crucial. It is particularly important in the intensive medical treatment of critically ill geriatric patients to clarify the question whether the patient benefits from each intensive care therapy, e.g., whether a desired therapeutic goal can be achieved, whether intensive care is in the (presumed) patient's will and whether the burdens during treatment are justified by the perspective of life. Furthermore, interdepartmental cooperation plays an important role in the intensive medical care of geriatric patients.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Paratesticular liposarcomas are almost always mistakenly diagnosed as inguinal hernias subsequently followed by inadequate operation. METHODS: 14 consecutive patients with paratesticular liposarcoma were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative management was evaluated. Disease-free and overall survival were determined. RESULTS: In 11 patients primary and in 3 patients recurrent liposarcoma of the spermatic cord were diagnosed. Regarding primary treatment in primary surgical intervention resection was radical (R0) in 7 of 14 (50%) patients, marginal (R1) in 6 (43%) patients, and incomplete with macroscopic residual tumour (R2) in 1 (7%) patient. Primary treatment secondary surgical intervention was performed in 4 patients: resection was radical (R0) in 3 (75%) patients and marginal (R1) in 1 (25%) patient. Regarding secondary treatment in recurrent disease resection was marginal (R1) in 3 patients (100%). Final histologic margins were negative in 10 patients with primary disease (71%) and positive in 4 patients with subsequent recurrent disease. After radical resection disease-free survival rates at 3 years were 100%. Overall survival at 4.5 years (54 (18-180) months) was 64%. CONCLUSION: An incomplete first surgical step increases the number of positive margins leading to local recurrences and adverse prognoses. Aggressive surgery should be attempted to attain 3-dimensional negative margins.
