How to report educational videos in robotic surgery: an international multidisciplinary consensus statement

n/

Regulation of reactive oxygen species by p53: implications for nitric oxide-mediated apoptosis

Nitric oxide (NO) induces vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) apoptosis in part through activation of p53. Traditionally, p53 has been thought of as the gatekeeper, determining if a cell should undergo arrest and repair or apoptosis following exposure to DNA-damaging agents, depending on the severity of the damage. However, our laboratory previously demonstrated that NO induces apoptosis to a much greater extent in p53−/− compared with p53+/+ VSMC. Increased reactive oxygen species (ROS) within VSMC has been shown to induce VSMC apoptosis, and recently it was found that the absence of, or lack of, functional p53 leads to increased ROS and oxidative stress within different cell types. This study investigated the differences in intracellular ROS levels between p53−/− and p53+/+ VSMC and examined if these differences were responsible for the increased susceptibility to NO-induced apoptosis observed in p53−/− VSMC. We found that p53 actually protects VSMC from NO-induced apoptosis by increasing antioxidant protein expression [i.e., peroxiredoxin-3 (PRx-3)], thereby reducing ROS levels and cellular oxidative stress. We also observed that the NO-induced apoptosis in p53−/− VSMC was largely abrogated by pretreatment with catalase. Furthermore, when the antioxidant protein PRx-3 and its specific electron acceptor thioredoxin-2 were silenced within p53+/+ VSMC with small-interfering RNA, not only did these cells exhibit greater ROS production, but they also exhibited increased NO-induced apoptosis similar to that observed in p53−/− VSMC. These findings suggest that ROS mediate NO-induced VSMC apoptosis and that p53 protects VSMC from NO-induced apoptosis by decreasing intracellular ROS. This research demonstrates that p53 has antioxidant functions in stressed cells and also suggests that p53 has antiapoptotic properties

Insulin enhances the effect of nitric oxide at inhibiting neointimal hyperplasia in a rat model of type 1 diabetes

Diabetes confers greater restenosis from neointimal hyperplasia following vascular interventions. While localized administration of nitric oxide (NO) is known to inhibit neointimal hyperplasia, the effect of NO in type 1 diabetes is unknown. Thus the aim of this study was to determine the efficacy of NO following arterial injury, with and without exogenous insulin administration. Vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMC) from lean Zucker (LZ) rats were exposed to the NO donor, DETA/NO, following treatment with different glucose and/or insulin concentrations. DETA/NO inhibited VSMC proliferation in a concentration-dependent manner to a greater extent in VSMC exposed to normal-glucose vs. high-glucose environments, and even more effectively in normal-glucose/high-insulin and high-glucose/high-insulin environments. G0/G1 cell cycle arrest and cell death were not responsible for the enhanced efficacy of NO in these environments. Next, type 1 diabetes was induced in LZ rats with streptozotocin. The rat carotid artery injury model was performed. Type 1 diabetic rats experienced no significant reduction in neointimal hyperplasia following arterial injury and treatment with the NO donor PROLI/NO. However, daily administration of insulin to type 1 diabetic rats restored the efficacy of NO at inhibiting neointimal hyperplasia (60% reduction, P < 0.05). In conclusion, these data demonstrate that NO is ineffective at inhibiting neointimal hyperplasia in an uncontrolled rat model of type 1 diabetes; however, insulin administration restores the efficacy of NO at inhibiting neointimal hyperplasia. Thus insulin may play a role in regulating the downstream beneficial effects of NO in the vasculature

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

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

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

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