Search

The sublingual mucosa is a commonly used intraoral location for identifying microcirculatory alterations using handheld vital microscopes (HVMs). The anatomic description of the sublingual cave and its related training have not been adequately introduced. The aim of this study was to introduce anatomy guided sublingual microcirculatory assessment. Measurements were acquired from the floor of the mouth using incident dark-field (IDF) imaging before (T0) and after (T1) sublingual cave anatomy instructed training. Instructions consists of examining a specific region of interested identified through observable anatomical structures adjacent and bilaterally to the lingual frenulum which is next to the sublingual papilla. The anatomical location called the sublingual triangle, was identified as stationed between the lingual frenulum, the sublingual fold and ventrally to the tongue. Small, large, and total vessel density datasets (SVD, LVD and TVD respectively) obtained by non-instructed and instructed measurements (NIN (T0) and IM (T1) respectively) were compared. Microvascular structures were analyzed, and the presence of salivary duct-related microcirculation was identified. A total of 72 video clips were used for analysis in which TVD, but not LVD and SVD, was higher in IM compared to NIM (NIM vs. IM, 25 ± 2 vs. 27 ± 3 mm/mm$^{2}$ (p = 0.044), LVD NIM vs. IM: 7 ± 1 vs. 8 ± 1mm/mm$^{2}$ (p = 0.092), SVD NIM vs. IM: 18 ± 2 vs. 20 ± 3 mm/mm$^{2}$ (p = 0.103)). IM resulted in microcirculatory assessments which included morphological properties such as capillaries, venules and arterioles, without salivary duct-associated microcirculation. The sublingual triangle identified in this study showed consistent network-based microcirculation, without interference from microcirculation associated with specialized anatomic structures. These findings suggest that the sublingual triangle, an anatomy guided location, yielded sublingual based measurements that conforms with internationa

Background: The only potentially curative option for patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) is resection, typically an extrahepatic bile duct resection in combination with (extended) liver resection. Complications such as bile leakage and liver failure have been suggested to be more common after right-sided resections compared to left-sided resections, whilst superior oncological outcomes have been reported after right-sided resections. However, data on outcomes after right-sided or left-sided liver resections in PHC are scarce. Therefore, we aimed to investigate short- and long-term outcomes after left and right hemihepatectomy in patients with PHC. Methods: In this retrospective study, patients undergoing major liver resection for suspected PHC in a tertiary center between 2000–2018 were included. Patients who had undergone left-sided resections were compared to patients with right-sided resections in terms of complications (90-day mortality, overall and severe morbidity and specific complications). For long-term outcomes, only patients with pathologically proven PHC were included in the survival analysis. Results: A total of 178 patients undergoing hemihepatectomy for suspected PHC were analysed, including 76 left-sided and 102 right-sided resections. Overall 90-day mortality was 14% (24 out of 178), with no significant difference after left-sided resection (11%; 8 out of 76) versus right-sided resection (16%; 16 out of 102) (P=0.319). Severe morbidity (Clavein Dindo ≥3) was also comparable in both groups: 54% versus 61% (P=0.361). No differences in specific complications including bile leakage were observed, although liver failure appeared to occur more frequently after right hemihepatectomy (22% versus 11%, P=0.052). Five-year overall survival for pathologically proven PHC, excluding in-hospital mortality, did not differ; 43.7% after left-sided resection vs. and 38.2% after right-sided resection (P=0.553). Conclusions: Both

Objective: To determine the yield of preoperative screening for COVID-19 with chest CT and RT-PCR in patients without COVID-19 symptoms. Summary of Background Data: Many centers are currently screening surgical patients for COVID-19 using either chest CT, RT-PCR or both, due to the risk for worsened surgical outcomes and nosocomial spread. The optimal design and yield of such a strategy are currently unknown. Methods: This multicenter study included consecutive adult patients without COVID-19 symptoms who underwent preoperative screening using chest CT and RT-PCR before elective or emergency surgery under general anesthesia. Results: A total of 2093 patients without COVID-19 symptoms were included in 14 participating centers; 1224 were screened by CT and RT-PCR and 869 by chest CT only. The positive yield of screening using a combination of chest CT and RT-PCR was 1.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8-2.1]. Individual yields were 0.7% (95% CI: 0.2-1.1) for chest CT and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.6-1.7) for RT-PCR; the incremental yield of chest CT was 0.4%. In relation to COVID-19 community prevalence, up to similar to 6% positive RT-PCR was found for a daily hospital admission rate >1.5 per 100,000 inhabitants, and around 1.0% for lower prevalence. Conclusions: One in every 100 patients without COVID-19 symptoms tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 with RT-PCR; this yield increased in conjunction with community prevalence. The added value of chest CT was limited. Preoperative screening allowed us to take adequate precautions for SARS-CoV-2 positive patients in a surgical population, whereas negative patients needed only routine procedures.