Tratamiento de las oclusiones postoperatorias en niños: ¿adhesiolisis abierta o laparoscópica? / Treatment of the postoperative bowel obstructions in children: laparoscopic vs. open adhesiolysis

Objetivo. Comparar los resultados de la adhesiolisis laparoscópica frente a la técnica abierta en niños con oclusiones postoperatorias. Método. Estudio retrospectivo de los pacientes intervenidos por oclusiones postoperatorias en nuestro centro. Se recogieron variables demográficas, las características clínicas del paciente y del cuadro oclusivo y los resultados postoperatorios. Resultados. En los últimos 8 años, se han realizado 37 intervenciones por oclusiones intestinales postoperatorias: un 40,5% mediante laparoscopia y un 59,5% mediante laparotomía. La media de edad fue 6,31 y 4,32 años para la técnica laparoscópica y abierta, respectivamente. No encontramos diferencias en el tiempo de evolución del cuadro oclusivo, ni en los antecedentes quirúrgicos. Sin embargo, el grupo de adhesiolisis laparoscópica presentó mejores resultados que el de cirugía abierta en: necesidad de vía central (15% frente a 61,90% p= 0,012), uso parenteral (38,46% frente a 83,33% p= 0,005), reinicio de la nutrición enteral (4,04 días frente a 8,17 p= 0,004) y estancia postoperatoria (7,77 frente a 13,05 días p= 0,027). Conclusiones. Ambos abordajes son eficaces para la resolución de la oclusión. La adhesiolisis laparoscópica aporta ventajas frente a la cirugía abierta: menor necesidad de vía central y de nutrición parenteral, reinicio precoz de la nutrición enteral y menor estancia hospitalaria

Objective. To compare the results of laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in children affected by postoperative bowel obstruction. Methods. Retrospective study reviewing charts of all patients who were operated on due to postoperative adhesions in our Department. Demographic data, clinical characteristics and postoperative data were collected. Results. During the last 8 years, 37 patients were operated on for postoperative intestinal obstructions. 40.5% were operated by laparoscopy and 59.5% by laparotomy. Mean ages were 6.31 and 4.32 years in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. There were no differences in days of evolution of the occlusion, neither in their medical history. Patients in laparoscopic group had better outcomes in the need of central lines (15% vs 61.90% p= 0.012), use of parenteral nutrition (38.46% vs 83.33% p= 0.005), beginning of the enteral nutrition (4.04 vs 8.17 days p= 0.004) and hospital stay (7.77 vs 13.05 days p= 0.027). Conclusions. Open and laparoscopic adhesiolysis are effective to treat adhesive cases. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis has some advantages over open surgery: less need of central lines and parenteral nutrition, earlier start of enteral nutrition, less rate of complications and shorter hospital stay

[Treatment of the postoperative bowel obstructions in children: laparoscopic vs. open adhesiolysis]. / Tratamiento de las oclusiones postoperatorias en niños: ¿adhesiolisis abierta o laparoscópica?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of laparoscopic versus open adhesiolysis in children affected by postoperative bowel obstruction. METHODS: Retrospective study reviewing charts of all patients who were operated on due to postoperative adhesions in our Department. Demographic data, clinical characteristics and postoperative data were collected. RESULTS: During the last 8 years, 37 patients were operated on for postoperative intestinal obstructions. 40.5% were operated by laparoscopy and 59.5% by laparotomy. Mean ages were 6.31 and 4.32 years in laparoscopic and open groups, respectively. There were no differences in days of evolution of the occlusion, neither in their medical history. Patients in laparoscopic group had better outcomes in the need of central lines (15% vs 61.90% p= 0.012), use of parenteral nutrition (38.46% vs 83.33% p= 0.005), beginning of the enteral nutrition (4.04 vs 8.17 days p= 0.004) and hospital stay (7.77 vs 13.05 days p= 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: Open and laparoscopic adhesiolysis are effective to treat adhesive cases. Laparoscopic adhesiolysis has some advantages over open surgery: less need of central lines and parenteral nutrition, earlier start of enteral nutrition, less rate of complications and shorter hospital stay.

OBJETIVO: Comparar los resultados de la adhesiolisis laparoscópica frente a la técnica abierta en niños con oclusiones postoperatorias. METODO: Estudio retrospectivo de los pacientes intervenidos por oclusiones postoperatorias en nuestro centro. Se recogieron variables demográficas, las características clínicas del paciente y del cuadro oclusivo y los resultados postoperatorios. RESULTADOS: En los últimos 8 años, se han realizado 37 intervenciones por oclusiones intestinales postoperatorias: un 40,5% mediante laparoscopia y un 59,5% mediante laparotomía. La media de edad fue 6,31 y 4,32 años para la técnica laparoscópica y abierta, respectivamente. No encontramos diferencias en el tiempo de evolución del cuadro oclusivo, ni en los antecedentes quirúrgicos. Sin embargo, el grupo de adhesiolisis laparoscópica presentó mejores resultados que el de cirugía abierta en: necesidad de vía central (15% frente a 61,90% p= 0,012), uso parenteral (38,46% frente a 83,33% p= 0,005), reinicio de la nutrición enteral (4,04 días frente a 8,17 p= 0,004) y estancia postoperatoria (7,77 frente a 13,05 días p= 0,027). CONCLUSIONES: Ambos abordajes son eficaces para la resolución de la oclusión. La adhesiolisis laparoscópica aporta ventajas frente a la cirugía abierta: menor necesidad de vía central y de nutrición parenteral, reinicio precoz de la nutrición enteral y menor estancia hospitalaria.

[Conservative management of retained central venous catheters]. / Manejo conservador de los catéteres venosos centrales retenidos.

BACKGROUND: Withdrawal of central venous catheters (CVCs) is usually a simple surgical procedure. However, in some cases, the catheter is stuck in the vessel wall and its removal is not possible if more invasive interventions are not performed. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study from 2003 to 2011 of patients who were clearing a CVC and the factors that could have intervened in the removal impossibility. We compared the type of catheter, the insertion site, the time between its insertion and removal, the primary diagnosis and the treatment. In addition, a monitoring by clinical and imaging tests has been made in patients with retained CVCs. RESULTS: An amount of 174 interventions were carried out. In 5 cases the CVC could not been removed. These 5 cases were patients diagnosed with ALL B and were treated with identical chemotherapy treatment. In addition, at the time of its retirement, all the patients had the CVC for a period longer than 2 years -29 to 84 months-. In patients with retained fragments, no complication arose from this condition. The mean follow-up period was 36 months -maximum 48 months-. CONCLUSIONS: The potential complications arising from the presence of the retained CVCs fragments include infection, venous thrombosis and catheter migration. Based on our results, we propose that a conservative management might be considered as an option in these patients.

Manejo conservador de los catéteres venosos centrales retenidos / Conservative management of retained central venous catheters

Introducción. La retirada de los catéteres venosos centrales (CVCs) suele ser un procedimiento quirúrgico sencillo. Sin embargo, en algunos casos el catéter se encuentra englobado en la pared del vaso y su extracción no es posible si no se realizan intervenciones más invasivas. Material y métodos. Se ha realizado un estudio retrospectivo desde 2003 a 2011 de los pacientes a los que se les ha retirado un CVC y de los factores que podrían haber intervenido en la imposibilidad de retirada. Se han comparado los tipos de catéter, la zona de inserción, el tiempo transcurrido desde la inserción a la retirada, el diagnóstico principal y el tipo de medicación. Además, se ha realizado un seguimiento clínico y mediante pruebas de imagen en los pacientes con CVCs retenidos. Resultados. Se realizaron 174 intervenciones. En 5 casos no se pudo extraer el CVC. Estos 5 casos fueron pacientes diagnosticados de LLA B y llevaron tratamiento quimioterápico idéntico. Además, en el momento de su retirada, todos llevaban el CVC por un periodo mayor a 2 años (de 29 a 84 meses). En los pacientes con fragmentos retenidos no se produjo ninguna complicación derivada de esta condición. El periodo medio de seguimiento fue de 36 meses (máximo de 48 meses).Conclusiones. Las posibles complicaciones derivadas de la presencia de fragmentos de los CVCs retenidos son la infección, la trombosis venosa y la migración del catéter. En base a nuestros resultados, planteamos que se podría considerar en estos pacientes una actitud expectante y un manejo conservador (AU)

Background. Withdrawal of central venous catheters (CVCs) is usually a simple surgical procedure. However, in some cases, the catheter is stuck in the vessel wall and its removal is not possible if more invasive interventions are not performed. Material and methods. We performed a retrospective study from 2003 to 2011 of patients who were clearing a CVC and the factors that could have intervened in the removal impossibility. We compared the type of catheter, the insertion site, the time between its insertion and removal, the primary diagnosis and the treatment. In addition, a monitoring by clinical and imaging tests has been made in patients with retained CVCs. Results. An amount of 174 interventions were carried out. In 5 cases the CVC could not been removed. These 5 cases were patients diagnosed with ALL B and were treated with identical chemotherapy treatment. In addition, at the time of its retirement, all the patients had the CVC for a period longer than 2 years -29 to 84 months-. In patients with retained fragments, no complication arose from this condition. The mean follow-up period was 36 months -maximum 48 months-.Conclusions. The potential complications arising from the presence of the retained CVCs fragments include infection, venous thrombosis and catheter migration. Based on our results, we propose that a conservative management might be considered as an option in these patients (AU)

[Cystic duplication of the rectum]. / Duplication kystique du rectum.

Cyst or intestinal duplications can arise anywhere along the gut, however those located in the rectum are very rare and only a few dozen cases have been reported. The reason that induced us to report this patient is double: first to present a new case of rectal duplication diagnosed at 45 days old that had a normal barium enema previously, second to confirm once more that the muscular complex of the rectum can be cut in the posterior middle line without any damage to the rectal continence function, as Peña's surgical approach for anorectal atresias. The case reported correspond to a newborn weighing 2,850 grs who had exomphalos of 5 cm. Wide with an integral sac and was operated by primary closure. When he was 10 days old, and because he had some intestinal disturbances compatible with malrotation, a barium enema was done that was normal. He was discharged and returned 30 days later because of striped feces and constipation. Rectal examination showed a retrorectal tumor located at left posterolateral space. Ultrasound showed a cystic mass and barium enema displayed a narrowed rectum channel. First we did a Wangesteen colostomy. Ten days later, by a sagittal posterior approach cutting the Levator and Muscular Complex of the rectum in the middle line and without opening the lumen, a tumor like a nut, sharing its muscular coat with the rectum, was excised. The Muscular Complex and the Levator were repaired with the aid of the electrostimulator. After the 7 day postoperation we made some rectal dilatations and closure of colostomy at 21 day.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)