Fijación interna versus percutánea en fracturas diafisarias de metacarpianos: estudio de casos-controles

Objetivos: comparación de resultados clínicos de fijación interna versus fijación percutánea. Material y Métodos: estudio retrospectivo de casos y controles de 58 fracturas de metacarpianos (43 pacientes). Se incluyeron las fracturas diafisarias, sin afectación articular. Se excluyeron si había afectación del pulgar o de falanges, fracturas abiertas o más de 3 fracturas en la misma mano. Un total de 26 fracturas fueron tratadas con fijación interna y 32 con percutánea. Con un seguimiento medio de 2,5 años (rango, 1-4), se valoró la función mediante movilidad activa total (MAT), fuerza, DASH, EAV de dolor y resultado radiográfico. Resultados: con ambos tratamientos los resultados fueron satisfactorios. El tiempo de consolidación y alineación radiográfica fueron similares. Todas las valoraciones clínicas, objetivas y subjetivas, fueron mejores en el grupo de fijación interna, así como la tasa de retorno a las actividades previas. En el grupo de fijación interna hubo un caso de pseudoartrosis que fue reoperado y otro de déficit de movilidad. En el grupo percutáneo hubo 4 casos con déficit de movilidad. Discusión y conclusiones: ambas técnicas ofrecen resultados adecuados, pero con la fijación interna se obtuvieron mejores resultados respecto a movilidad, fuerza, mayor facilidad para realización de las actividades previas y retorno a las laborales y deportivas, a pesar de las complicaciones inherentes a la cirugía abiertaObjectives: comparison of outcomes with internal fixation versus percutaneous fixation. Material and Methods: retrospective case-control study of 58 metacarpal fractures (43 patients). Shaft fractures without joint involvement were included. Exclusion criteria were involvement of the thumb or phalange, open fracture, or more than 3 fractures in the same hand. There were 26 fractures treated with internal fixation and 32 with percutaneous fixation. With a mean follow-up of 2,5 years (range, 1-4), functional evaluation was performed by total active motion (TAM), strength grip, DASH, pain VAS, and radiographic results. Results: satisfactory outcomes were obtained with both treatments. Consolidation time and radiographic alignment were similar. All clinical objective and subjective assessments were better in the internal fixation group, as well as the rate of return to previous activities. In the internal fixation group, there was one case with nonunion, which was reoperated, and other with lack of motion. In the percutaneous group, there were 4 cases with mobility deficits. Discussion and conclusions: satisfactory results were offered by both methods, but better outcomes were obtained by internal fixation with regard to motion, strength, best facility for previous activities, and return to work and sport activities. All this was spite of the inherent complications of open surger

Fístula aorto-entérica y ley de Murphy

Objective. To reflect our frustration when losing a patient, not because their infrequent pathology is in itself  very serious, but because of the accumulation of other diagnostic and therapeutic reasons in a hospital  environment of the Covid-19 epidemic. Method. First we describe the diagnostic, therapeutic and evolutionary process (February 27 to March 25, 2020) of a 73-year-old male with an aorto-enteric fistula secondary to an aorto-bifemoral bypass, implanted  twelve years earlier in another hospital. Then we present our experience (1978-2020) in this type of situation,  and finally we carried out a review of the literature (1953-2020) in this regard. Results. A) Clinical case: absence of early diagnosis, failure of the chosen operative technique, significant postoperative complications (hemorrhage, cerebral infarction and bilateral coronavirus pneumonia) that ended in death. B) Personal experience: four cases (including the referred one). C) Literature review: three systematic reviews: 564 cases (1953-1993); 386 cases in 58 publications (1991-2006), 823 patients in 216 publications (1995-2015) and 20 cases in 14 publications (2016-2020).  Conclusion. If in normal situations an aorto-enteric fistula is a condition that seriously threatens the patient's life (hemorrhage and / or infection), it should not be surprising that in exceptional situations this serious situation increases. However, from these bad experiences we are obliged to draw lessons that will benefit others in the future.  Objetivo. Reflejar nuestra frustración al perder un paciente, no porque su infrecuente patología sea de por sí muy grave, sino por el acumulo sobreañadido de otros motivos diagnósticos, y terapéuticos en un entorno  hospitalario de epidemia Covid-19. Método. Primero describimos el proceso diagnóstico, terapéutico y evolutivo (27 febrero al 25 marzo 2020)  de un varón de 73 años portador de una fístula aorto-entérica secundaria a un bypass aortobifemoral, implantado doce años antes en otro hospital. Después presentamos nuestra experiencia (1978-2020) en este  tipo de situaciones, y finalmente realizamos una revisión de la literatura (1953-2020) al respecto. Resultados. A) Caso clínico: ausencia de diagnóstico precoz, fracaso de la técnica operatoria elegida, importantes complicaciones postoperatorias (hemorragia, infarto cerebral y neumonía bilateral por coronavirus) que finalizo en exitus. B) Experiencia personal: cuatro casos (incluido el referido). C) Revisión de  la literatura: tres revisiones sistemáticas: 564 casos (1953-1993); 386 casos en 58 publicaciones (1991-2006),  823 pacientes en 216 publicaciones (1995-2015) y 20 casos en 14 publicaciones (2016-2020). Conclusión. Si en situaciones normales una fístula aorto-entérica es una condición que amenaza seriamente  la vida del paciente (hemorragia y/o infección), no debe extrañar que en situaciones excepcionales esa  situación de gravedad se incremente. No obstante, de estas malas experiencias estamos obligados a sacar  enseñanzas que beneficien a otros en el futuro. 

Efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of insulin degludec and liraglutide (IDegLira) compared with its components given alone: results of a phase 3, open-label, randomised, 26-week, treat-to-target trial in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-ratio combination of the basal insulin analogue insulin degludec and the glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide has been developed as a once-daily injection for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. We aimed to compare combined insulin degludec-liraglutide (IDegLira) with its components given alone in insulin-naive patients. METHODS: In this phase 3, 26-week, open-label, randomised trial, adults with type 2 diabetes, HbA1c of 7-10% (inclusive), a BMI of 40 kg/m(2) or less, and treated with metformin with or without pioglitazone were randomly assigned (2:1:1) to daily injections of IDegLira, insulin degludec, or liraglutide (1·8 mg per day). IDegLira and insulin degludec were titrated to achieve a self-measured prebreakfast plasma glucose concentration of 4-5 mmol/L. The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c after 26 weeks of treatment, and the main objective was to assess the non-inferiority of IDegLira to insulin degludec (with an upper 95% CI margin of 0·3%), and the superiority of IDegLira to liraglutide (with a lower 95% CI margin of 0%). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01336023. FINDINGS: 1663 adults (mean age 55 years [SD 10], HbA1c 8·3% [0·9], and BMI 31·2 kg/m(2) [4·8]) were randomly assigned, 834 to IDegLira, 414 to insulin degludec, and 415 to liraglutide. After 26 weeks, mean HbA1c had decreased by 1·9% (SD 1·1) to 6·4% (1·0) with IDegLira, by 1·4% (1·0) to 6·9% (1·1) with insulin degludec, and by 1·3% (1·1) to 7·0% (1·2) with liraglutide. IDegLira was non-inferior to insulin degludec (estimated treatment difference -0·47%, 95% CI -0·58 to -0·36, p<0·0001) and superior to liraglutide (-0·64%, -0·75 to -0·53, p<0·0001). IDegLira was generally well tolerated; fewer participants in the IDegLira group than in the liraglutide group reported gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 8·8 vs 19·7%), although the insulin degludec group had the fewest participants with gastrointestinal adverse events (nausea 3·6%). We noted no clinically relevant differences between treatments with respect to standard safety assessments, and the safety profile of IDegLira reflected those of its component parts. The number of confirmed hypoglycaemic events per patient year was 1·8 for IDegLira, 0·2 for liraglutide, and 2·6 for insulin degludec. Serious adverse events occurred in 19 (2%) of 825 patients in the IDegLira group, eight (2%) of 412 in the insulin degludec group, and 14 (3%) of 412 in the liraglutide group. INTERPRETATION: IDegLira combines the clinical advantages of basal insulin and GLP-1 receptor agonist treatment, resulting in improved glycaemic control compared with its components given alone

Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: group, T. E. S. o. C. c. (2018). "Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 47-57., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.1437. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived VersionsINTRODUCTION: Some evidence suggests that primary anastomosis following left sided colorectal resection in the emergency setting may be safe in selected patients, and confer favourable outcomes to permanent enterostomy. The aim of this study was to compare the major postoperative complication rate in patients undergoing end stoma vs primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection. METHODS: A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 audit. Adult patients (> 16 years) who underwent emergency (unplanned, within 24 h of hospital admission) left sided colonic or rectal resection were included. The primary endpoint was the 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5). RESULTS: From 591 patients, 455 (77%) received an end stoma, 103 a primary anastomosis (17%) and 33 primary anastomosis with defunctioning stoma (6%). In multivariable models, anastomosis was associated with a similar major complication rate to end stoma (adjusted odds ratio for end stoma 1.52, 95%CI 0.83-2.79, P = 0.173). Although a defunctioning stoma was not associated with reduced anastomotic leak (12% defunctioned [4/33] vs 13% not defunctioned [13/97], adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95%CI 0.43-11.02, P = 0.343), it was associated with less severe complications (75% [3/4] with defunctioning stoma, 86.7% anastomosis only [13/15]), a lower mortality rate (0% [0/4] vs 20% [3/15]), and fewer reoperations (50% [2/4] vs 73% [11/15]) when a leak did occur. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anastomosis in selected patients appears safe after left sided emergency colorectal resection. A defunctioning stoma might mitigate against risk of subsequent complications

The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit.

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: The and E. S. o. C. c. groups (2018). "The impact of conversion on the risk of major complication following laparoscopic colonic surgery: an international, multicentre prospective audit." Colorectal Disease 20(S6): 69-89., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/codi.14371. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy has now been implemented as a standard of care for elective colonic resection around the world. During the adoption period, studies showed that conversion may be detrimental to patients, with poorer outcomes than both laparoscopic completed or planned open surgery. The primary aim of this study was to determine whether laparoscopic conversion was associated with a higher major complication rate than planned open surgery in contemporary, international practice. METHODS: Combined analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 and 2015 audits. Patients were included if they underwent elective resection of a colonic segment from the caecum to the rectosigmoid junction with primary anastomosis. The primary outcome measure was the 30-day major complication rate, defined as Clavien-Dindo grade III-V. RESULTS: Of 3980 patients, 64% (2561/3980) underwent laparoscopic surgery and a laparoscopic conversion rate of 14% (359/2561). The major complication rate was highest after open surgery (laparoscopic 7.4%, converted 9.7%, open 11.6%, P < 0.001). After case mix adjustment in a multilevel model, only planned open (and not laparoscopic converted) surgery was associated with increased major complications in comparison to laparoscopic surgery (OR 1.64, 1.27-2.11, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate laparoscopic conversion should not be considered a treatment failure in modern practice. Conversion does not appear to place patients at increased risk of complications vs planned open surgery, supporting broadening of selection criteria for attempted laparoscopy in elective colonic resection

An international multicentre prospective audit of elective rectal cancer surgery; operative approach versus outcome, including transanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME)

IntroductionTransanal total mesorectal excision (TaTME) has rapidly emerged as a novel approach for rectal cancer surgery. Safety profiles are still emerging and more comparative data is urgently needed. This study aimed to compare indications and short-term outcomes of TaTME, open, laparoscopic, and robotic TME internationally.MethodsA pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP) 2017 audit was performed. Patients undergoing elective total mesorectal excision (TME) for malignancy between 1 January 2017 and 15 March 2017 by any operative approach were included. The primary outcome measure was anastomotic leak.ResultsOf 2579 included patients, 76.2% (1966/2579) underwent TME with restorative anastomosis of which 19.9% (312/1966) had a minimally invasive approach (laparoscopic or robotic) which included a transanal component (TaTME). Overall, 9.0% (175/1951, 15 missing outcome data) of patients suffered an anastomotic leak. On univariate analysis both laparoscopic TaTME (OR 1.61, 1.02-2.48, P=0.04) and robotic TaTME (OR 3.05, 1.10-7.34, P=0.02) were associated with a higher risk of anastomotic leak than non-transanal laparoscopic TME. However this association was lost in the mixed-effects model controlling for patient and disease factors (OR 1.23, 0.77-1.97, P=0.39 and OR 2.11, 0.79-5.62, P=0.14 respectively), whilst low rectal anastomosis (OR 2.72, 1.55-4.77, P<0.001) and male gender (OR 2.29, 1.52-3.44, P<0.001) remained strongly associated. The overall positive circumferential margin resection rate was 4.0%, which varied between operative approaches: laparoscopic 3.2%, transanal 3.8%, open 4.7%, robotic 1%.ConclusionThis contemporaneous international snapshot shows that uptake of the TaTME approach is widespread and is associated with surgically and pathologically acceptable results

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease