Search

Introduction: Although some studies have reported on the relationship between appendiceal stump closure methods and postoperative complications, there is no fixed method for this procedure. This study aimed to compare treatment outcomes of the existing procedures. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of 200 patients who underwent urgent laparoscopic surgeries and investigated whether the difference in the appendiceal stump closure method was a risk factor for surgical site infection. The patients were divided into the Endoloop and endostapler groups, and 45 propensity score‐matched patients were included. The treatment outcomes of the two groups were compared. Results: The patients with high body temperature showed significantly developed surgical site infection in multivariate analysis (P =.036). There was no significant difference in the appendix stump methods (Endoloop vs endostapler). Regarding postoperative complications, superficial and deep incisional surgical site infection, organ/space surgical site infection, ileus, and complications of Clavien–Dindo grade IIIa or higher; there was no significant difference between the endoloop and endostapler groups after propensity score matching (P =.725, 1.000,.645 and.557, respectively). Conclusion: By properly using the Endoloop and endostapler according to the severity of inflammation, the Endoloop can be safely performed in many cases. Inexpensive Endoloop as an option for stump closure methods should positively impact medical costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Gas in the portal venous system, or hepatic portal venous gas, is a rare occurrence associated with ischemic colitis, inflammatory bowel disease, or any cause of bowel perforation, including from a necrotic tumor. This report presents the case of a 72-year-old man with diabetes who had carcinoma of the ileocecal region, sepsis due to Klebsiella pneumoniae, and hepatic portal venous gas. CASE REPORT A 72-year-old man with ileocecal cancer was admitted to our hospital for preoperative diabetes control. He developed a fever and septic shock, without abdominal symptoms or signs of peritoneal irritation. Klebsiella pneumoniae was detected in blood cultures. Abdominal ultrasonography showed hepatic portal venous gas, and a simple computed tomography scan revealed gas in the vasculature and hepatic portal vein in the lateral segment, which led us to believe that the ileocecal mass was the source of infection, and emergency surgery was performed. The patient was discharged from the hospital on postoperative day 34 with good progress despite dehydration due to high-output syndrome. CONCLUSIONS Sepsis due to necrosis of ileocecal cancer is often difficult to diagnose because it is not accompanied by abdominal symptoms, as in our case. However, abdominal ultrasound is useful because it allows for a broad evaluation. This report has demonstrated and highlighted that the findings of hepatic portal venous gas on imaging should be regarded seriously, requiring urgent investigation to identify the cause and commence treatment in cases of infection or sepsis.

Patients with esophageal cancer who have severe complications such as diabetes sometimes require two-stage surgery. Herein, we describe two cases of gastric emphysema that were treated at our facility after the patients had previously undergone minimally invasive esophagectomy as the first-stage surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Case 1: A 72-year-old man with a history of diabetes mellitus (DM) was diagnosed with esophageal cancer and an esophageal obstruction and subsequently underwent percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) placement followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The treatment efficacy was good; once the tumor was deemed resectable, the patient underwent robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and cervical esophagostomy placement as the first stage of surgical treatment. The patient had a good postoperative course and was discharged on postoperative day (POD) 10. However, on POD 16, he returned to the hospital with abdominal distension. Computed tomography (CT) revealed gastric emphysema and hepatic portal vein gas. Conservative treatment was initiated as there were no signs of peritoneal irritation. An upper gastrointestinal (GI) series revealed delayed gastric emptying (DGE); therefore, replacement of the PEG with a percutaneous endoscopic gastrojejunostomy (PEG-J) was necessary. On POD 42, the patient underwent reconstructive surgery as the second-stage surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Case 2: A 74-year-old man had a history of DM, chronic renal failure, and PEG placement for dysphagia caused by left recurrent nerve palsy after thoracic aortic aneurysm surgery. The patient underwent a thoracoscopic esophagectomy with cervical esophagostomy placement as the first-stage surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. On POD 6, the patient developed abdominal distension, his CT showed gastric emphysema. An upper GI series was performed, which showed DGE. After conservative treatment and improvement in his general condition, the patient underwent a jejunostomy placement on POD 30. Both patients developed gastric emphysema related to PEG placement after undergoing esophagectomy as the first-stage surgical treatment of esophageal cancer. Additionally, both patients had a history of DM. Gastric emphysema, which is thought to be caused by increased intragastric pressure due to postoperative DGE, developed within 30 days of undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy in both patients. Therefore, the rate of nutrient administration and symptoms should be carefully monitored during the postoperative management of patients with these characteristics., Competing Interests: Human subjects: Consent was obtained or waived by all participants in this study. Conflicts of interest: In compliance with the ICMJE uniform disclosure form, all authors declare the following: Payment/services info: All authors have declared that no financial support was received from any organization for the submitted work. Financial relationships: All authors have declared that they have no financial relationships at present or within the previous three years with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work. Other relationships: All authors have declared that there are no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024, Moriuchi et al.)