Minimally invasive endoscopic management of buried bumper syndrome by use of a novel dedicated resection device.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Costa D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6675916 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6031219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tube removal by endoscopic submucosal dissection using needle and insulation-tipped diathermic knives against buried bumper syndrome is a reliable, noninvasive and safe procedure.
| S-EPMC6787815 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7570444 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10416684 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of large duodenal lipomas (DLs) of ≥2 cm between endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR).MethodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent endoscopic resection of large DLs from June 2017 to March 2021 at our hospital. Clinicopathologic features, clinical outcomes, and follow-up endoscopy findings were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsTwenty-three patients (12 men) with a mean age of 57.4 years were included. The median tumor size was 28.4 ± 13.3 mm. ESD was performed in 19 patients, and EFTR was performed in 4. Complete resection was achieved in 21 patients. The operative time and postoperative hospital stay were significantly shorter in the ESD than EFTR group. Four patients in the EFTR group developed a fever; no other adverse events occurred. No patients required surgical intervention. During the average follow-up of 21.1 months, no residual tumor, recurrence, or metastasis was observed.ConclusionBoth ESD and EFTR provide minimally invasive, localized treatment of selected DLs. ESD might have some advantages in resecting large DLs in terms of procedure time and hospitalization.
| S-EPMC8721732 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBuried bumper syndrome (BBS) is an uncommon but significant complication of percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG), which occurs due to overgrowth of gastric mucosa over the inner bumper of the gastrostomy tube. A high incidence of BBS was observed in patients with Freka PEG tubes.ObjectiveTo review case numbers of BBS and confirm the observed association with Freka tubes to determine whether change of practice should be considered.DesignData was collected on the number of cases of BBS reported to the community nutrition team Birmingham, UK. Data on type of PEG kit and total number of PEGs inserted between 2009 and 2013 were collected. The electronic endoscopy reporting database was used to compare case numbers of BBS in our Trust in years when Corflo and Freka PEG tubes were used, respectively. Data from our Trust were also compared with that from a Trust using Corflo only.ResultsFifty-eight cases of BBS were reported in the area covered by the Birmingham community nutrition team between 2009 and 2013, all of which were associated with Freka PEG tubes. An estimated 1000-1200 PEGs were inserted during this period, representing an incidence of BBS of 4.8-5.8%. No cases of BBS occurred over the same period in the comparison Trust (451 Corflo PEGs inserted).ConclusionsOur review confirmed our observation of an increased risk of BBS with Freka PEG tubes. Clinicians should be aware of our findings when deciding which brand of PEG tube to insert, particularly in patients with a previous history of BBS.
| S-EPMC5369583 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11336546 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Durable mechanical circulatory support (MCS) systems are established therapy option in patients with end-stage heart failure, with increasing importance during the last years due to donor organ shortage. Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are traditionally implanted through median sternotomy (MS). However, improvement in the pump designs during the last years led to evolvement of new surgical approaches that aim to reduce the invasiveness of the procedure. Numerous reports and studies have shown the viability and possible advantages of less-invasive approach compared to the sternotomy approach. The less invasive implant strategies for LVADs, while vague in definition, are characterized by minimizing surgical trauma and if possible, cardio-pulmonary bypass related complications. Usually it involves minimizing or completely avoiding sternal trauma, avoiding heart luxation while simultaneously leaving the major part of pericardium intact. There is no consensus between the centers regarding the ideal approach for LVAD implantation. Some centers, like our center, perform by default VAD implantation using less invasive approach in almost all patients and some centers use only sternotomy approach. The aim of this review article is to shed light on the currently available less invasive options of LVAD implantation, with particular focus on the centrifugal pumps, and their possible advantages compared to traditional sternotomy approach.
| S-EPMC8024790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Primary cardiac tumours for which surgical resection is the main stay of treatment are rare and present both diagnostic and management challenges. The majority of patients are asymptomatic and one third of those who have symptoms present with vague constitutional symptoms which further complicates the process of early diagnosis. The current state-of-the art multi-modality imaging, routine use of intra-operative transoesophageal echocardiogram (TOE) in most cardiac centres and the tremendous advances of endoscopic adjuncts greatly enhances both the diagnosis and management of those group of patients. The surgical burden of median sternotomy and the contemporary trend towards less invasive surgery urged the necessity for adopting minimally invasive surgery in general and cardiac tumours are no exception. Despite the rarity of theses tumours, minimally invasive resection is successful in the hands of experienced minimally invasive surgeons who employ the same minimal access valve surgery platform to access the tumours in various cardiac chambers and valves with no compromise to the oncological clearance and hence achieve the benefits of minimally invasive surgery without compromising long term outcomes.
| S-EPMC8024814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPancreatic resections are among the most technically demanding procedures, including a high risk of potentially life-threatening complications and outcomes strongly correlated to hospital volume and individual surgeon experience. Minimally invasive pancreatic resections (MIPRs) have become a part of standard surgical practice worldwide over the last decade; however, in comparison with other surgical procedures, the implementation of minimally invasive approaches into clinical practice has been rather slow.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to highlight and summarize the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the role of minimally invasive approaches in pancreatic surgery.MethodsA WHO trial registry and Pubmed database literature search was performed to identify all RCTs comparing MIPRs (robot-assisted and/or laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy [DP] or pancreatoduodenectomy [PD]) with open pancreatic resections (OPRs).ResultsOverall, five RCTs on MIPR versus OPR have been published and seven RCTs are currently recruiting. For DP, the results of two RCTs were in favor of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) in terms of shorter hospital stay and less intraoperative blood loss, with comparable morbidity and mortality. Regarding PD, two RCTs showed similar advantages for MIPD. However, concerns were raised after the early termination of the third multicenter RCT on MIPD versus open PD due to higher complication-related mortality in the laparoscopic group and no clear other demonstrable advantages. No RCTs on robot-assisted pancreatic procedures are available as yet.ConclusionAt the current level of evidence, MIDP is thought to be safe and feasible, although oncological safety should be further evaluated. Based on the results of the RCTs conducted for PD, MIPD cannot be proclaimed as the superior alternative to open PD, although promising outcomes have been demonstrated by experienced centers. Future studies should provide answers to the role of robotic approaches in pancreatic surgery and aim to identity the subgroups of patients or indications with the greatest benefit of MIPRs.
| S-EPMC7892688 | biostudies-literature