Search

Aim: The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR. Method: Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed. Results: Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%). Conclusion: The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Our main goal is to describe how to start and develop a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. The first step is to have an idea that will become the hypothesis and a main objective. A bibliographic search should be done to check for clinical interest and originality. Moreover, the study must be feasible and should be finished within 4 years. In order to start the multicenter study, a protocol should be written (in accordance with the SPIRIT guidelines Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials), including the design type, sample size and participating hospitals. Randomization is key to the design and, therefore, the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines must be followed. However, if the study cannot be randomized, the TREND (Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs) guidelines are recommended. When the protocol is approved by the Ethics Committee for Clinical Investigation of the hospital, we ought to create visibility. It is suggested to register the trial on ClincalTrials.gov and submit its publication to indexed magazines. Financial resources are necessary to execute the study and maintain an online database. This allows the registry to be updated and accessible to all the participants in the study. What is more, randomization can be done immediately. And last, but not least, is motivation. Multicentricity equals to participation of all the chosen medical centers. Updating and motivating them by sending a newsletter every 1-3 months keeps participants engaged in the study.

Resumen El objetivo de este articulo es ilustrar como poner en marcha y desarrollar un estudio multicentrico prospectivo, controlado y aleatorizado. Por ello, lo primero que se necesita es crear una idea que genere una hipotesis y un objetivo principal. La busqueda bibliografica nos permite ver su relevancia clinica y las evidencias publicadas. Ademas, hay que plantearse si el estudio es viable economicamente y si puede ser completado en un periodo menor a 4 anos. Una vez ideado el estudio multicentrico, para ejecutarlo se debe redactar un protocolo (segun la guia Standard Protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials [SPIRIT 2013]). En el se recogeran el tipo de diseno, el tamano muestral y los centros que participaran. La aleatorizacion es clave en el diseno. Si puede ser aleatorizado, se recomienda utilizar la guia Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), si no, la Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-Randomized Designs (TREND). Cuando el protocolo es aprobado por el Comite Etico de Investigacion Clinica del hospital, hay que darle visibilidad. Es por eso que se recomienda su registro en ClincalTrials.gov y su publicacion en revistas indexadas. Para el inicio del estudio, se requiere buscar fuentes de financiacion. Estas permiten tener una base de datos on line, que permiten aleatorizar al momento y mantener el registro al dia desde cualquier centro. Por ultimo, hay que destacar que es imprescindible la motivacion. La multicentricidad solo se entiende si todos los centros participan. Asi que informar de resultados y dar animos cada 1-3 meses (en forma de newsletter) es una manera de conseguir un buen funcionamiento del estudio.

Anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN) is a premalignant lesion of anal squamous cell carcinoma. HIV-positive males who have sex with males, are the most affected at-risk population. Cytology and anuscopy are the best accepted methods for its diagnosis, although it is controversial which patients should complete it with a biopsy. Neither which patients should undergo treatment nor which is the best treatment is not well established. With this study, we would like to present our experience in the diagnostic-therapeutic management of AIN in the short term.Retrospective observational study of patients at risk of AIN with altered anal cytology who underwent high-resolution anuscopy with biopsy. After histological confirmation of dysplasia, they started treatment with trichloroacetic acid. Its effectiveness was verified by subsequent cytology. The demographic variables of the sample and the results of both diagnostic and treatment tests were analyzed.The majority were HIV-positive males (104/115) and 50% had sexual relations with other men. We included 115 patients with altered anal cytology, of whom 92% had dysplasia on biopsy. 97% with atypia of uncertain significance on cytology had histological dysplasia. Cytology normalized after treatment in 60% of patients.Early detection of AIN should be routinely considered in known at-risk populations. Any cytological abnormality should be biopsied. Tricholoroacetic acid can be an effective treatment achieving a high percentage of regression, although currently, the information we have is of low level of evidence.

Background Laparoscopic technical surgical skills (LTS) are considered a fundamental competence for General Surgery residents. Several simulation tools (ST) have been explored to develop LTS. Although a plethora of systematic reviews evaluate the translation of LTS developed in simulation to real surgery, there is a lack of evidence that clarifies effectiveness of different validated ST in acquisition of LTS in surgical residents. The aim of this systematic review (SR) is to summarize published evidence on ST validation used for surgery education and training. Methods A protocol was published in PROSPERO. A SR was carried out following PRISMA guidelines. Complete published articles in English or Spanish that validate either content or construct, plus another form of validation of ST to acquire LTS in general surgery were included. Articles that used only one validation or did not validate an ST were excluded. Results 1052 publications were initially identified across all searched databases. Title review identified 204 studies eligible for full text screening. 10 studies were included for final review. Two studies assessed both face and content, 4 face and construct, and 4 face, content and construct validity. None of the studies presented comparable outcomes due to metrics variation and scores used for the validation strategies. Conclusions This study assessed validated laparoscopic simulation models, particularly in content and construct validity. Articles reported an increased use of simulation models in laparoscopic training with positive feedback from trainees, but few studies reported validation of training model. Validation strategies are not standardized, limiting comparability between them.

Resumen Introduccion El objetivo de este estudio es llevar a cabo la evaluacion de la tecnica de deteccion del ganglio centinela (GC) con tincion de azul de metileno «ex vivo» en el cancer de colon, asi como calcular la supraestadificacion y su correlacion con la evolucion de la enfermedad. Metodos Entre 2008 y 2011, 101 pacientes fueron operados de cancer de colon con la deteccion del GC, estudiandose las micrometastasis. El seguimiento de los pacientes N0 fue mayor a un ano en busqueda de recidivas y si tenian relacion con la aparicion de dichas micrometastasis. Resultados El indice de deteccion del GC fue de 92 casos (91%). Fue positivo para micrometastasis en 9 casos, con una supraestadificacion del 14%. La incidencia de falsos negativos fue de 9 pacientes (10%). El seguimiento medio de los 74 pacientes N0 fue de 38 meses. Se observo recurrencia en 4 pacientes (7%) del grupo de pacientes con GC− (65 pacientes) y en 2 pacientes (22%) en el grupo con GC+ (9 pacientes, sin diferencias estadisticas significativas. Tampoco se observaron diferencias en terminos de supervivencia entre los 2 grupos. Conclusiones El estudio del GC es una practica reproducible sin aumento significativo del tiempo y de costes. Puede llegar a supraestadificar el 14% de pacientes que habian sido clasificados como N0 con tecnica convencional. En el seguimiento de los pacientes N0 con GC+ parece haber una tendencia a un porcentaje mayor de recidivas, lo que podria llevar a cambios en las pautas de tratamiento adyuvante, aunque debemos tomarlo con cautela ya que la muestra es escasa.

Resumen Objetivo Conocer la opinion de los cirujanos miembros de la Societat Catalana de Cirurgia (SCC) sobre la aplicabilidad, ventajas e inconvenientes de la cirugia laparoscopica (CL). Material y metodos Encuesta de opinion remitida a todos los miembros de la SCC entre febrero y abril de 2001, que incluia aspectos generales y situaciones clinicas. Resultados Han contestado 194 cirujanos (30,4%). Solo 50 (26%) cirujanos realizan procedimientos avanzados. La experiencia del cirujano es el factor que mas influye en los resultados de la CL para 87 cirujanos (45%) y 89 (46%) creen que la CL acabara siendo una superespecialidad. La CL es considerada de primera eleccion en la colelitiasis (99%), cirugia del reflujo gastroesofagico (RGE) (94%) y colecistitis aguda (88%). Otras afecciones como la hernia inguinal, bazo, colon benigno y suprarrenal lo serian en casos seleccionados. El cancer de colon, la apendicitis y la eventracion tienen baja aceptacion como primera indicacion en CL. El 44% de cirujanos consideran que la CL no ha tenido el crecimiento esperado. Conclusiones La CL, en nuestro medio y para un amplio colectivo de cirujanos, es ampliamente aceptada en la colelitiasis y el RGE, mientras la CL avanzada es realizada por pocos cirujanos. Aspectos como la formacion en CL y superespecializacion restan por perfilar en un futuro.

Introduction: The aim of this study is to evaluate the sentinel lymph node mapping (SLNM) with methylene blue staining "ex vivo" in colon cancer, as well as calculate the upstaging obtained by the determination of micrometastases and its correlation with the evolution of the disease. Methods: Between 2008 and 2011, 101 patients with colon cancer undergoing resection were studied prospectively with SLNM and detection of micrometastases. The correlation of SLN micrometastases with the disease evolution was evaluated in patients with a follow-up of more than one year. Results: The SLNM rate was 92 cases (91%). Only SLN was positive for micrometastases in 9 cases, with a 14% upstaging. The incidence of false negatives was 9 patients (10%). Mean follow of N0 patients (n = 74) was 38 months. The SLN-(negative) group (65 patients) had a recurrence rate of 4 patients (7%), whereas this rate was 2 patients (22%) in the group of SLN + (positive) (9 patients), but without significant differences. No differences in survival were observed. Conclusions: SLNM is a reproducible technique without significant increase in time and costs. Upstaging was obtained in 14% of patients staged as N0 by conventional technique. At follow-up of N0 patients with SLN + there seems to be a higher rate of recurrence, which could change the guidelines of adjuvant treatment, but we must interpret the results it with caution because the sample is small. (C) 2013 AEC. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.