Gil Jae Lee

Comparison of the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic versus open surgery for colon perforation during colonoscopy

Purpose Colonoscopy is a safe and commonly used method for the screening of colon cancer, but sometimes major complications, such as, colonic perforation or hemorrhage occur during the procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the surgical outcomes of laparoscopic and open surgery for colon perforation after colonoscopy. Methods A retrospective review of patient records was performed on 25 patients with iatrogenic colon perforation during colonoscopy during the 7-year period from January 2005 to June 2012. Demographic data, operative procedures, operation times, postoperative complications, hospital course, and morbidities in the laparoscopic surgery group (LG) and open surgery group (OG) were compared. Results Seventeen of the 25 patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (68%) and 8 patients open surgery (32%). The most common surgical methods were primary repair in the LG, and Hartmanns operation in the OG. Average time to first flatus was 2.9 days in the LG and 4.5 days in the OG, and average times to first meals were 4.5 days and 5 days, respectively. Mean hospital stays were 10.8 days in the LG and 17 days in the OG. After surgery, complications occurred in two patients in the LG, but no complication occurred in the OG. Conclusion Laparoscopic repair for iatrogenic colonic perforation during colonoscopy seems to be useful and safe surgical method in early period after perforation. However, open surgery is also needed for the delayed cases after perforation.

Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors Associated With the Nonreversal Ileostomy Following Sphincter-Preserving Surgery for Rectal Cancer.

Purpose A loop ileostomy is used to protect an anastomosis after anal sphincter-preserving surgery, especially in patients with low rectal cancer, but little information is available concerning risk factors associated with a nonreversal ileostomy. The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors of ileostomy nonreversibility after a sphincter-saving resection for rectal cancer. Methods Six hundred seventy-nine (679) patients with rectal cancer who underwent sphincter-preserving surgery between January 2004 and December 2011 were evaluated retrospectively. Of the 679, 135 (19.9%) underwent a defunctioning loop ileostomy of temporary intent, and these patients were divided into two groups, that is, a reversal group (RG, 112 patients) and a nonreversal group (NRG, 23 patients) according to the reversibility of the ileostomy. Results In 23 of the 135 rectal cancer patients (17.0%) that underwent a diverting ileostomy, stoma reversal was not possible for the following reasons; stage IV rectal cancer (11, 47.8%), poor tone of the anal sphincter (4, 17.4%), local recurrence (2, 8.7%), anastomotic leakage (1, 4.3%), radiation proctitis (1, 4.3%), and patient refusal (4, 17.4%). The independent risk factors of the nonreversal group were anastomotic leakage or fistula, stage IV cancer, local recurrence, and comorbidity. Conclusion Postoperative complications such as anastomotic leakage or fistula, advanced primary disease (stage IV), local recurrence and comorbidity were identified as risk factors of a nonreversal ileostomy. These factors should be considered when drafting prudential guidelines for ileostomy closure.

Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II Score and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score as Predictors for Severe Trauma Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Background The Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scoring system and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scoring system are widely used for critically ill patients. We evaluated whether APACHE II score and SOFA score predict the outcome for trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods We retrospectively analyzed trauma patients admitted to the ICU in a single trauma center between January 2014 and December 2015. The APACHE II score was figured out based on the data acquired from the first 24 hours of admission; the SOFA score was evaluated based on the first 3 days in the ICU. A total of 241 patients were available for analysis. Injury Severity score, APACHE II score, and SOFA score were evaluated. Results The overall survival rate was 83.4%. The non-survival group had a significantly high APACHE II score (24.1 ± 8.1 vs. 12.3 ± 7.2, P < 0.001) and SOFA score (7.7 ± 1.7 vs. 4.3 ± 1.9, P < 0.001) at admission. SOFA score had the highest areas under the curve (0.904). During the first 3 days, SOFA score remained high in the non-survival group. In the non-survival group, cardiovascular system, neurological system, renal system, and coagulation system scores were significantly higher. Conclusions In ICU trauma patients, both SOFA and APACHE II scores were good predictors of outcome, with the SOFA score being the most effective. In trauma ICU patients, the trauma scoring system should be complemented, recognizing that multi-organ failure is an important factor for mortality.

Comparison of outcomes before and after establishing a regional trauma center and following a protocol to treat blunt splenic injury in South Korea: A retrospective study:

Background: Nonoperative management for hemodynamically stable splenic injury has been accepted as appropriate treatment. Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the changes in management and clinical outcomes of splenic injury by introducing a protocol for splenic injury at a newly established regional trauma center. Methods: From January 2005 to December 2016, we reviewed the outcomes of all 257 patients who sustained blunt trauma to the spleen at the first regional trauma center in South Korea. This 11-year period was divided into two intervals, before 1 January 2014 (period I, n = 189 patients) and after 1 January 2014 (period II, n = 68 patients), when the trauma center was established and a formal management protocol was followed for patients with blunt traumatic splenic injuries. Results: The proportion of emergency operations performed for patients with more serious (grades 3–5) splenic injuries was lower in period II than in period I (29% vs 22%, respectively, p < 0.001) whereas the rate of angioembolization was higher (89% vs 39.0%, respectively, p < 0.001). The time to intervention, irrespective of whether emergency operation or angioembolization was performed, was shorter in period II than in period I (312.8 min vs 129 min, respectively, p = 0.001). A greater proportion of patients was managed non-operatively in period II (78% vs 71%), and the non-operative management success rate was higher in period II than it was in period I (100% vs 83%; p = 0.014). Similarly, the splenic salvage rate was higher in period II (78% vs 59%, p = 0.03). Conclusion: After establishing a regional trauma center and introducing a protocol for the management of blunt splenic injuries, the rates of non-operative management and splenic salvage improved significantly. The reasons for this may be multifactorial, being related to the early involvement of a trauma surgeon, expansion of angiographic facilities and resources, and the introduction and application of a protocol for managing blunt splenic injury.