Dataset Information

3D pelvimetry and biometric measurements: a surgical perspective for colorectal resections.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Male sex, high BMI, narrow pelvis, and bulky mesorectum were acknowledged as clinical variables correlated with a difficult pelvic dissection in colorectal surgery. This paper aimed at comparing pelvic biometric measurements in female and male patients and at providing a perspective on how pelvimetry segmentation may help in visualizing mesorectal distribution.

Methods

A 3D software was used for segmentation of DICOM data of consecutive patients aged 60 years, who underwent elective abdominal CT scan. The following measurements were estimated: pelvic inlet, outlet, and depth; pubic tubercle height; distances from the promontory to the coccyx and to S3/S4; distance from S3/S4 to coccyx's tip; ischial spines distance; pelvic tilt; offset angle; pelvic inlet angle; angle between the inlet/sacral promontory/coccyx; angle between the promontory/coccyx/pelvic outlet; S3 angle; and pelvic inlet to pelvic depth ratio. The measurements were compared in males and females using statistical analyses.

Results

Two-hundred patients (M/F 1:1) were analyzed. Out of 21 pelvimetry measurements, 19 of them documented a significant mean difference between groups. Specifically, female patients had a significantly wider pelvic inlet and outlet but a shorter pelvic depth, and promontory/sacral/coccyx distances, resulting in an augmented inlet/depth ratio when comparing with males (p < 0.0001). The sole exceptions were the straight conjugate (p = 0.06) and S3 angle (p = 0.17). 3D segmentation provided a perspective of the mesorectum distribution according to the pelvic shape.

Conclusion

Significant differences in the structure of pelvis exist in males and females. Surgeons must be aware of the pelvic shape when approaching the rectum.

SUBMITTER: Lorenzon L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8026460 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo analyze internal spherical aberration in pseudophakic eyes that underwent aspheric intraocular lens (IOL) implantation, and to investigate the relationships between biometric data and the effectiveness of aspheric IOL implantation.MethodsThis retrospective study included 40 eyes of 40 patients who underwent implantation of an IOL having a negative spherical aberration of -0.20 μm (CT ASPHINA 509M; Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc., Germany). The IOLMaster (version 5.0; Carl Zeiss AG, Germany) was used for preoperative biometric measurements (axial length, anterior chamber depth, central corneal power) and the measurement of postoperative anterior chamber depth. The spherical aberrations were measured preoperatively and 3 months postoperatively using the iTrace (Tracey Technologies, Houston, TX, USA) at a pupil diameter of 5.0 mm. We investigated the relationships between preoperative biometric data and postoperative internal spherical aberration, and compared biometric measurements between 2 subgroups stratified according to internal spherical aberration (spherical aberration ≤ -0.06 μm vs. spherical aberration > -0.06 μm).ResultsThe mean postoperative internal spherical aberration was -0.087 ± 0.063 μm. Preoperative axial length and residual total spherical aberration showed statistically significant correlations with internal spherical aberration (p = 0.041, 0.002). Preoperative axial length, postoperative anterior chamber depth, IOL power, and residual spherical aberration showed significant differences between the 2 subgroups stratified according to internal spherical aberration (p = 0.020, 0.029, 0.048, 0.041 respectively).ConclusionThe corrective effect of an aspheric IOL is influenced by preoperative axial length and postoperative anterior chamber depth. Not only the amount of negative spherical aberration on the IOL surface but also the preoperative axial length should be considered to optimize spherical aberration after aspheric IOL implantation.

Project description:Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the second most common form of nosocomial infection. Colorectal resections have high rates of SSIs secondary to the inherently contaminated intraluminal environment. Negative pressure wound therapy dressings have been used on primarily closed incisions to reduce surgical site infections in other surgical disciplines. No randomized control trials exist to support the use of negative pressure wound therapy following elective open colorectal resection to reduce surgical site infection.In this single-center, superiority designed prospective randomized open blinded endpoint controlled trial, patients scheduled for a colorectal resection via a laparotomy will be considered eligible. Patients undergoing laparoscopic resection will be enrolled but only randomized and included if the operation is converted to an open procedure. Exclusion criteria are patients receiving an abdominoperineal resection or a palliative procedure, as well as pregnant patients and those with an adhesive allergy. After informed consent, 300 patients will be randomized to the use of a standard adhesive gauze dressing or to a negative pressure wound device. Patients will be followed in hospital and reassessed on post-operative day 30. The primary outcome measure is SSI within the first 30 post-operative days. Secondary outcomes include the length of hospital stay, the number of return visits related to a potential or actual SSI, cost, and the need for homecare. The primary endpoint analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle.NEPTUNE is the first randomized controlled trial to investigate the role of incisional negative pressure wound therapy in decreasing the rates of surgical site infections in the abdominal incisions of patients following an elective, open colorectal resection. This low-risk intervention may help decrease the morbidity and costs associated with the development of an SSI in our patients.NCT02007018--clinicaltrials.gov; 5 December 2013.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the relative contribution of intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis, mechanical bowel preparation, oral antibiotic prophylaxis, and combinations thereof towards the reduction of surgical site infection (SSI) incidence in elective colorectal resections.Methods and analysisA systematic search of randomised controlled trials comparing interventions to reduce SSI incidence will be conducted with predefined search terms in the following databases: MEDLINE, LILACS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). Additionally, several online databases will be searched for ongoing trials, and conference proceedings and reference lists of retrieved articles will be hand searched. The title-abstract screening will be partly performed by means of a semiautomated supervised machine learning approach, which will be trained on a subset of the identified titles and abstracts identified through traditional screening methods.The primary analysis will be a multicomponent network meta-analysis, as we expect to identify studies that investigate combinations of interventions (eg, mechanical bowel preparation combined with oral antibiotics) as well as studies that focus on individual components (mechanical bowel preparation or oral antibiotics). By means of a multicomponent network meta-analysis, we aim at estimating the effects of the separate components along the effects of the observed combinations. To account for between-trial heterogeneity, a random-effect approach will be combined with inverse variance weighting for estimation of the treatment effects. Associated 95% CIs will be calculated as well as the ranking for each component in the network using P scores. Results will be visualised by network graphics and forest plots of the overall pairwise effect estimates. Comparison-adjusted funnel plots will be used to assess publication bias.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval by the Ethical Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg (ID of approval: 2021-148). Results shall be disseminated directly to decision-makers (eg, surgeons, gastroenterologists, wound care specialists) by means of publication in peer-reviewed journals, presentation at conferences and through the media (eg, radio, TV, etc).Prospero registration numberCRD42021267322.