1,721,163 research outputs found

    Transanal endoscopic microsurgery: indications, tips and long-term results. A single center experience

    No full text
    Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) was introduced to combine the curativeness of full thickness excision with minimum morbidity, while traditional rectal surgery is burdened by high morbidity and mortality rates. However, while it is still a matter of considerable debate whether local excision is an adequate approach for curative resection of rectal cancer, new minimally invasive operative techniques have been introduced. The purpose of this paper was to show the indications, the tips and long term results of this technique through the review of the largest single-center database available to date. The showed results derived from the single center experience of the Clinica Chirurgica of Polytechnic University of Marche. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a 25-year database from May 1992 to May 2017. We divided the patients into three different groups of patients according to the preoperative diagnosis: rectal cancers, adenomas and other rectal lesions. Rectal adenomas were divided into two groups according to their diameter (> or <5 cm). Rectal cancer patients were divided into two groups according to the preoperative staging: early rectal cancer and irradiated rectal cancer. Results: Among the 1324 patients who had rectal tumors excised with TEM at our institution, preoperative histology was rectal adenoma in 729 (55%) patients, adenocarcinoma in 536 (40.5%) patients and other lesions in the remaining 59 (4.4%) patients. 5 years overall survival (OS) and Recurrence free survival (RFS) were 93.3% and 98.6% for patients with rectal adenomas and 86.8% and 70.9% for patients with rectal cancer. Conclusions: TEM can be a valid alternative for the treatment of both benign and malignant rectal lesions, further studies are needed to define more specific indications to justify the survival of this technique in the future

    Telemedicine in surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: are we doing enough?

    Full text link
    Introduction: The aim of this systematic review was to report and to analyze if there is and what is the impact of telemedicine in the surgical practice during COVID-19 pandemic. Many authors have posited that the pandemic urged a high implementation of the telemedicine service even in surgical specialties, however, the impact of this change of the clinical practice has been variably reported and its utilization in general surgery is uncertain. Evidence acquisition: All articles from any country written in English, Italian, Spanish, or French, about the use of telemedicine for indication to surgical treatment or for 30-day postoperative follow-up in general surgery during the COVID 19 outbreak, from the March 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020, were included. Evidence synthesis: Two hundred nine articles were fully analyzed, and 207 further articles were excluded. Finally, 2 articles, both published in October 2020, were included in the present systematic review. Conclusions: In conclusion, the rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has forced to review the traditional methods to deliver surgical assistance and urged surgeons to find alternative methods to continue their practice. The literature about this topic is yet scarce and many questions regarding its efficacy in improving patients' health, cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction remain unsolved

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore