Stump appendicitis after laparoscopic appendectomy; laparoscopic management and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Appendectomy is one of the most common surgical procedures performed worldwide There are different etiologies for acute appendicitis such as obstruction of the appendiceal lumen by fecalith, lymphoid hyperplasia, or neoplasm. Laparoscopic appendectomy has become the treatment of choice for both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis; common postoperative complications include wound infection, bleeding, intraabdominal abscess. Stump appendicitis is defined as the interval repeated inflammation of remaining residual appendiceal tissue after an appendectomy. PRESENTATION OF CASE: 38-Year-old female patient with a history of laparoscopic appendectomy performed in 2016 for acute uncomplicated appendicitis. She arrived to the emergency room due to abdominal pain 7 out of 10, located in the periumbilical region, later with migration to the right lower quadrant, abdominal CT scan evidenced the presence of a cecal and pericecal inflammatory process as well as the base and residual proximal portion of the cecal appendix laparoscopic stump appendectomy was performed. DISCUSSION: Stump appendicitis (SA) is defined as the inflammation of the remnant of the cecal appendix after an appendectomy, whether due to impaction of a fecalith or secondary to an ischemic process, the probability of developing SA is estimated to be about 1/50,000 cases throughout life. The most frequently used treatment is exploratory laparotomy to complete the previous appendectomy; however, there are 5 reported cases of stump appendicitis, where surgical resolution was performed through laparoscopic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to keep this entity in mind when evaluating a patient with acute abdomen with previous history of appendectomy, since the delay in diagnosis and treatment increases morbidity and mortality; laparoscopic stump appendectomy has been shown to be a safe treatment (Agha et al., 2020 [14]).1.

Gallbladder osteoma in a 66-year-old female; Case report and review of literature.

INTRODUCTION: Gallbladder mesenchymal tumours are rare. The more common include fibroma, lipoma or haemangioma. A gallbladder osteoma is very rare indeed there is only one other case reported in medical literature). We report a new case. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 66-year-old female presented to the emergency department complaining of colicky epigastric pain and generalised abdominal discomfort for 1 month. The pain was scored 5/10 but there were no associated symptoms of fever, nausea or vomiting. Vital signs were normal as were all laboratory parameters. An abdominal ultrasound revealed a thin walled gallbladder with a solitary 3 mm polyp. Motility studies confirmed gallbladder dyskinesia. Laboratory studies were ordered reporting normal findings. Abdominal ultrasound was ordered reporting an image suggesting a gallbladder polyp and gallbladder dyskinesia. Cholecystectomy was done without any incidents and the gallbladder was sent to pathology. Pathology reported mature bone tissue in the stromal gallbladder tissue. Due to the rareness of the presence of mature bone tissue in the gallbladder we decided to report the case for the medical community. DISCUSSION: Osteomas are mesenchymal cell tumors derived from the mesoderm; the gallbladder may be the primary site of numerous types of mesenchymal tumors, although these tumors are common the location is not. CONCLUSIONS: We report only the second case of gallbladder osteoma. These mesenchymal tumours are common but this location is not. This case report will serve to remind readers of both benign osteomas and unusual conditions causing gallbladder disease.

[Laparoscopic versus open surgery for colorectal cancer. A comparative study]. / Estudio comparativo entre cirugía laparoscópica y cirugía abierta en cáncer colorrectal.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer is currently accepted and widespread worldwide. However, according tol the surgical experience on this approach, surgical and short-term oncologic results may vary. Studies comparing laparoscopic vs. open surgery in our population are scarce. OBJECTIVE: To determine the superiority of the laparoscopic vs. open technique for colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: This retrospective and comparative study collected data from patients operated on for colorectal cancer between 1999 and 2011 at the Angeles Lomas Hospital, Mexico. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included in this study; 47 were operated through an open approach and 35 laparoscopically. Mean operative time was significantly lower in the open approach group (p= 0.008). There were no significant difference between both techniques for intraoperative bleeding (p= 0.3980), number of lymph nodes (p= 0.27), time to initiate oral feeding (p= 0.31), hospital stay (p= 0.12), and postoperative pain (p= 0.19). Procedure-related complications rate and type were not significantly different in both groups (p= 0.44). Patients operated laparoscopically required significantly less analgesic drugs (p= 0.04) and less need for epidural postoperative analgesia (p= 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic approach is as safe as the traditional open approach for colorectal cancer. Early oncological and surgical results confirm its suitability according to this indication.

Antecedentes: la cirugía laparoscópica para tratar pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ha sido ampliamente aceptada y difundida en todo el mundo. Sin embargo, dependiendo de la experiencia en este abordaje los resultados quirúrgicos y oncológicos a corto plazo pueden variar. En nuestra población existen pocos estudios que comparan los resultados de esta técnica con los de la cirugía abierta. Objetivos: determinar la superioridad de la técnica laparoscópica o abierta en cirugía de cáncer colorrectal. Material y métodos: estudio retrospectivo y comparativo de pacientes operados con técnica abierta o laparoscópica por cáncer de colon y recto entre 1999 y 2011 en nuestro centro. Resultados: se incluyeron 47 pacientes intervenidos de manera convencional y 35 por laparoscopia. El tiempo operatorio fue menor en el grupo de cirugía abierta (p= 0.008). No se encontraron diferencias en: sangrado intraoperatorio (p= 0.3980), número de ganglios resecados (p= 0.27), inicio de la vía oral (p= 0.31), tiempo de estancia hospitalaria (p= 0.12), y dolor referido por el paciente (p= 0.19). En el grupo de cirugía laparoscópica se requirieron menos dosis de analgésicos (p= 0.04) y menor necesidad de catéter epidural para analgesia postoperatoria (p= 0.01). Las tasas de morbilidad (p= 0.44) y mortalidad (p= 0.39) fueron similares en ambos grupos. Conclusiones: la cirugía laparoscópica es equiparable a la técnica abierta en cuanto a estándares oncológicos y resultados técnicos. Este trabajo demuestra que en nuestro hospital la cirugía laparoscópica en pacientes con cáncer de colon y recto es tan segura como la cirugía abierta.

[Appendectomy by minimally invasive surgery]. / Apendicectomía por cirugía de invasión mínima.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the results obtained with the laparoscopic appendectomy in a trial of 106 cases from 1997 to December of 2002 in a surgeons group. Comparing the results with the papers of the literature to qualified the safety and security of the method and to establish the advantages upon the open appendectomy. BACKGROUND DATA: The laparoscopic appendectomy is a technique that in the past ten years has proof its safety and efficacy to resolve the problems of vermiform appendix. METHODS: Prospective trial of 106 patients with probability or diagnosis of acute appendicitis approach to laparoscopic appendectomy. With statistical analysis of the data. RESULTS: 106 patients, 42 male and 62 female, average age 30.8, diagnosis of acute appendicitis before surgery of 70%, and with abdominal pain in 30%. Of the data obtained only the total count of leucocytes have the statistical value in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. The average of surgical time was of 70.7 minutes, the average of length of hospital stay was of 74 hours. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in 83% of the cases, normal appendix 10.3%, another pathology 6.7%. Conversion rate of 5.5% (6 patients). Abscess 3, peritonitis 1, hemorrhage 1, appendix rupture 1. Morbidity of 3.7% wound infection. Mortality 0%. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical indications for the laparoscopic appendectomy are the same that for open surgery. The technique is safe and effective that can be carried out in any patient, still in cases or perforated appendicitis or gangrenous. The success is depend of the experience of the surgical team. The wound infection, recovery time, postoperative pain are less in the laparoscopic appendectomy.