Laparoscopic treatment of intestinal malrotation in neonates and infants: retrospective study

Intestinal malrotation in neonates or infants may require urgent surgical treatment, especially when volvulus and vascular compromise of the midgut are suspected. Successful laparoscopic management of malrotation has been described in a number of case reports. It remains unclear, however, whether laparoscopy for the treatment of malrotation has a success rate equal to that of open surgery and what relative risks exist in terms of conversion and redo surgery in larger numbers of patients. This report describes a retrospective analysis of the clinical outcome for 45 children who underwent laparoscopic treatment of intestinal malrotation at the authors' institution. The 45 patients in this series, ages several days to 13 years, underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected intestinal malrotation. For 37 patients, malrotation with or without volvulus was diagnosed. All these patients underwent laparoscopic derotation and Ladd's procedure. Successful laparoscopic treatment of intestinal malrotation could be performed in 75% of the cases (n = 28), and conversion to an open procedure was necessary in 25% of the cases (n = 9). The median hospital stay was 11 days (range, 2-60 days). Postoperative clinical relapse due to recurrence of malrotation, volvulus, or both occurred for 19% of the laparoscopically treated patients (n = 7). These patients underwent laparoscopic (n = 1) or open (n = 6) redo surgery. Diagnostic laparoscopy is the procedure of choice when intestinal malrotation is suspected. If present, malrotation can be treated adequately with laparoscopic surgery in the majority of cases. Nevertheless, to prevent recurrence of malrotation or volvulus, a low threshold for conversion to an open procedure is mandated

Resident Research and Scholarly Activity in Internal Medicine Residency Training Programs

OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe how internal medicine residency programs fulfill the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) scholarly activity training requirement including the current context of resident scholarly work, and 2) to compare findings between university and nonuniversity programs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. SETTING: ACGME-accredited internal medicine residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residency program directors. MEASUREMENTS: Data were collected on 1) interpretation of the scholarly activity requirement, 2) support for resident scholarship, 3) scholarly activities of residents, 4) attitudes toward resident research, and 5) program characteristics. University and nonuniversity programs were compared. MAIN RESULTS: The response rate was 78%. Most residents completed a topic review with presentation (median, 100%) to fulfill the requirement. Residents at nonuniversity programs were more likely to complete case reports (median, 40% vs 25%; P =.04) and present at local or regional meetings (median, 25% vs 20%; P =.01), and were just as likely to conduct hypothesis-driven research (median, 20% vs 20%; P =.75) and present nationally (median, 10% vs 5%; P =.10) as residents at university programs. Nonuniversity programs were more likely to report lack of faculty mentors (61% vs 31%; P <.001) and resident interest (55% vs 40%; P =.01) as major barriers to resident scholarship. Programs support resident scholarship through research curricula (47%), funding (46%), and protected time (32%). CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine residents complete a variety of projects to fulfill the scholarly activity requirement. Nonuniversity programs are doing as much as university programs in meeting the requirement and supporting resident scholarship despite reporting significant barriers