Long-term follow-up of prophylactic mesh reinforcement after emergency laparotomy. A retrospective controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of incisional hernias with a prophylactic mesh in emergency surgery is controversial. The present study aimed to analyze the long-term results of prophylactic mesh used for preventing incisional hernia after emergency midline laparotomies. METHODS: This study was a registered (NCT04578561) retrospective analysis of patients who underwent an emergency midline laparotomy between January 2009 and July 2010 with a follow-up period of longer than 2 years. Long-term outcomes and risk factors for the development of incisional hernias between patients who received a prophylactic reinforcement mesh (Group M) and suture (Group S) were compared. RESULTS: From an initial 266 emergency midline laparotomies, 187 patients were included. The median follow-up time was 64.4 months (SD 35). Both groups had similar characteristics, except for a higher rate of previous operations (62 vs. 43.2%; P = 0.01) and operation due to a revision laparotomy (32.5 vs.13%; P = 0.02) in the M group. During follow-up, 29.9% of patients developed an incisional hernia (Group S 36.6% vs. Group M 14.3%; P = 0.002). Chronic mesh infections were diagnosed in 2 patients, but no mesh explants were needed, and no patient in the M group developed chronic pain. Long-term risk factors for incisional hernia were as follows: smoking (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.318-4.624; P = 0.05), contaminated surgery (HR = 2.98; 95% CI 1.142-7.8; P = 0.02), surgical site infection (SSI; HR = 3.83; 95% CI 1.86-7.86; P = 0.001), and no use of prophylactic mesh (HR = 5.09; 95% CI 2.1-12.2; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Incidence of incisional hernias after emergency midline laparotomies is high and increases with time. High-risk patients, contaminated surgery, and surgical site infection (SSI) benefit from mesh reinforcement. Prophylactic mesh use is safe and feasible in emergencies with a low long-term complication rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04578561. www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Outcomes of kidney transplantation in Greek and Albanian patients: a single centre experience.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: It has been reported that racial and ethnic (genetic make up), as well as socioeconomic differences may affect the results of kidney transplantation. Socioeconomic factors are quite difficult to differentiate from genetic factors. It is not surprising that a group with poorer access to health care, less private insurance and less income does less well with serious medical problems. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of kidney transplantations in Greek (G) and Albanian (A) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty nine transplanted patients of Albanian ancestry were matched with 29 Greek patients retrospectively. Their mean age was 34 (G) and 31 (A) years, there were 21 men and 8 women in each group (G, A) and they received 26 kidneys from living related donors and 3 kidneys from cadaveric donors respectively. Arterial blood pressure (ABP), body weight (BW), serum creatinine, serum total protein and albumin, total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides, 24 hour proteinuria were measured on 7th, 15th postoperative day, 1st , 3rd , 6th month and 1st year after transplant. BMI was calculated before and 1 year after transplantation and acute rejection episodes were recorded too. Methylprednizolone (MP), cyclosporine (CsA) dose /kg BW were calculated at baseline, 1, 3, 6, 12 months after transplant. Cumulative patient and graft survival at 1 and 5 years were calculated too. RESULTS: Patient survival at 1 and 5 years was 100% / 93.1% and 100% /93.1% respectively (p: NS). Graft survival at 1 and 5 years was 100% / 93.10% and 93.75% / 86.45% respectively (p: NS). BW (but not BMI) and total cholesterol levels in Greek patients were higher compared to those of Albanian patients during the 1st post transplant year (p: 0.044 and p: 0.021 respectively). MP dose in A patients was higher during the first year (p: 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients and graft survival do not present difference between G and A patients. There is significant difference on cholesterol profile between G and A patients. A larger number of transplants are possibly needed to allow us to draw firm conclusions.

[The effect of a new formulation of almagate on gastroesophageal reflux in esophagitis patients. A randomized, single-blind and cross-over study]. / Efecto de una nueva formulación de almagato sobre el reflujo gastroesofágico en pacientes con esofagitis. Estudio randomizado, simple ciego y cruzado.

The effect of postprandial administration of a new formulation of almagate (1.5 g, po) or an association of alginate + antacid (2.4 g, po) on gastric alkalinization and gastroesophageal reflux were assessed in a randomized, single-blind, cross-over study in 21 patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Continuous intragastric and esophageal acidity was evaluated by postprandial intraluminal pHmetry. When comparing both preparations, the new formulation of almagate significantly improved all pHmetric variables (number of reflux episodes (3 vs 6, p = 0.029), time of esophageal exposition to pH < 4.0 (1vs 9 minutes, p = 0.009), duration of longest reflux episode (1 vs 3 minutes, p = 0.036), reflux index (1 vs 2, p = 0.047), and intragastric time with pH greater than 4.0 (108 vs 46 minutes, p = 0.003). This results suggest that the new formulation of almagate could be effective in the treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease, since acidity profile of patients treated with it have been shown an intragastric long-lasting alkalinization wave.