A case of seatbelt-induced mesenteric injury and delayed colon ischemia after a car accident.

Trauma is the sixth leading cause of death globally and the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in young patients. Blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries are rare, occuring in only 1-5% of blunt abdominal traumas, and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. In this report, we present a case of a patient with sigmoid colon perforation due to ischemia caused by mesenteric injury, who was admitted to the hospital with abdominal pain two days after a car accident. A twenty-one-year-old man was admitted to the emergency department with abdominal pain and vomiting, having been involved in a car accident as a driver two days prior. Computed tomogra-phy revealed free air in the abdomen, originating from the perforation of the sigmoid colon wall, and free fluid in the pelvic area. The patient underwent immediate laparotomy. Exploration revealed a rupture in the sigmoid mesocolon, causing ischemia and perforation. Additionally, there was a rupture in the mesentery of the terminal ileum close to the ileocecal valve, but without ischemia. Partial sig-moid colon and ileal resections were performed, followed by colocolic anastomosis and double-barrel ileostomy. He was discharged in good health after a 20-day hospital stay. Thorough clinical examination and radiological evaluation can aid in detecting visceral injuries in trauma patients. Early recognition and repair of intestinal damage can prevent severe complications.

Comparison of neoadjuvant versus upfront surgery for treatment of locally advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to compare long term oncological outcomes of upfront surgery versus neoadjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: A total of 183 patients who were operated for gastric cancer were retrospectively analyzed. The patients received either standard gastrectomy or preoperative NACT + gastrectomy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered with FLOT regimen (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin) or DCF regimen (docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil). RESULTS: Of the patients receiving NACT, 33 received FLOT regimen and 14 received DCF regimen. The number of male patients was higher in both standard gastrectomy and NACT + gastrectomy groups (p=0.385). Leukopenia and neutropenia were the most common hematological toxicities, while anemia and nausea were the most frequent non-hematological side effects in the both of NACT group. The outcomes of the grades of postoperative complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification is similar between groups. There was no statistically significant difference in the length of hospital stay after surgery between the groups (p=0,001). According to the disease stage, it was found no statistically significant difference in the OS and DFS between the NACT and standard gastrectomy groups. CONCLUSION: Although we found no significant difference between the patients undergoing standard gastrectomy and those undergoing NACT before gastrectomy, we believe that NACT may contribute to the favorable prognosis of patients with locally advanced disease with improved OS and DFS and this should be examined in future studies. KEY WORDS: FLOT, Gastric Cancer, Neoadjuvant Treatment.