RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Based on recent scientific evidence, bariatric surgery is more effective in the management of morbid obesity and related comorbidities than conservative therapy. Pylorus preserving surgical procedures (PPBS) such as laparoscopic single-anastomosis duodeno-jejunal or duodeno-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy are modified duodenal switch (DS) surgical techniques. The duodeno-jejunal bypass liner (DJBL) is a novel surgical method in the inventory of metabolism focused manual interventions that excludes duodeno-jejunal mucosa from digestion, mimicking DS procedures without the risk of surgical intervention. The aim of this article is to summarize and compare differences between safety-related features and weight loss outcomes of DJBL and PPBS. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in the PubMed database. Records of DJBL-related adverse events (AEs), occurrence of PPBS-related complications and reintervention rates were collected. Mean weight, mean body mass index (BMI), percent of excess of weight loss (EWL%), percent of total weight loss (TWL%) and BMI value alterations were recorded for weight loss outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 11 publications on DJBL and 6 publications on PPBS were included, involving 800 and 1462 patients, respectively. The baseline characteristics of the patients were matched. Comparison of DJBL-related AEs and PPBS-related severe complications showed an almost equal risk (risk difference (RD): -0.03 and confidence interval (CI): -0.27 to 0.21), despite higher rates among patients having received endoscopic treatment. Overall AE and complication rates classified by Clavien-Dindo showed that PPBS was superior to DJBL due to an excess risk level of 25% (RD: 0.25, CI: 0.01-0.49). Reintervention rates were more favourable in the PPBS group, without significant differences in risk (RD: -0.03, CI: -0.27 to 0.20). However, PPBS seemed more efficient regarding weight loss outcomes at 1-year follow-up according to raw data, while meta-analysis did not reveal any significant difference (odds ratio (OR): 1.08, CI: 0.74-1.59 for BMI changes). CONCLUSION: Only limited conclusions can be made based on our findings. PPBS was superior to DJBL with regard to safety outcomes (GRADE IIB), which failed to support the authors' hypothesis. Surgical procedures showed lower complication rates than the incidence of DJBL-related AEs, although it should be emphasized that the low number of PPBS-related mild to moderate complications reported could be the result of incomplete data recording from the analysed publications. Weight loss outcomes favoured bariatric surgery (GRADE IIB). As the DJBL is implanted into the upper gastrointestinal tract for 6 to 12 months, it seems a promising additional method in the inventory of metabolic interventions.
Asunto(s)
Cirugía Bariátrica , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Derivación Gástrica , Obesidad Mórbida , Cirugía Bariátrica/efectos adversos , Duodeno/cirugía , Humanos , Yeyuno/cirugía , Obesidad Mórbida/cirugía , Píloro/cirugía , Resultado del Tratamiento , Pérdida de PesoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Surgical Site Infection (SSI) is the third most frequent nosocomial infection, and accounts for 14-16% of all infections. While the treatment of SSI can be very costly, previous results indicated that triclosan may reduce SSI rate. Therefore, we carried out a prospective randomised trial to further evaluate the effect of triclosan after elective colorectal surgery. METHODS: Seven surgical units in Hungary were involved in a prospective, randomised, multicentric clinical trial to compare triclosan coated (PDS plus®) and uncoated (PDS II®) sutures for abdominal wall closure in elective colorectal surgery. Pre- and perioperative variables were recorded in an online database. The primary aims of the study were to determine the incidence of SSI and the pathogens associated with it, as well as evaluation of additional cost of treatment. RESULTS: 485 patients were randomised. SSI occurred in 47 cases (12.5%), of those 23 (12.23%) from the triclosan group (n = 188) and 24 (12.18%) from the uncoated group (n = 197, p = 0.982). In 13 (27.66%) cases late appearance of SSI was detected, of those 4 patients with triclosan coated suture (8.51%) and 9 patients with uncoated suture (19.15%, p = 0.041). There was no difference between the type of incisions or elective colon and rectal resections in terms of incidence of SSI. CONCLUSION: Beneficial effect of triclosan against Gram positive bacteria could not be confirmed in our study due to the relatively low number of patients with SSI. Furthermore, triclosan did not influence the incidence of SSI due to Gram negative bacteria. SSI rate decreased by 50% compared to our previous study, however, it was regardless of the use of coated or uncoated PDS loop. Finally, operative factors were more important than patient's risk factors in terms of incidence of SSI. In case SSI developed, delayed discharge from hospital as well as special wound care significantly increased overall cost of treatment.
Asunto(s)
Antiinfecciosos Locales/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades del Colon/cirugía , Cirugía Colorrectal/métodos , Enfermedades del Recto/cirugía , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/epidemiología , Suturas , Triclosán/uso terapéutico , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Hungría/epidemiología , Incidencia , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Prospectivos , Infección de la Herida Quirúrgica/etiología , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
The authors have carried out laparoscopically assisted abdomino-perineal rectal resections on a selected group of 8 patients during the past two years. The laparoscopic technique was not accompanied by any complications, while the patients enjoyed the benefits of the procedure. The bowel function of the patients were restored on the 2nd to 3rd day, the mean length of the hospital stay was 8.3 days. On the basis of their own favourable initial experience and recent literature data, the authors discuss the benefits, disadvantages and pitfalls of the laparoscopically assisted technique for surgical treatment of colorectal cancer. The problematics of oncological radicality is analysed.