Objective To discuss the differences of the effects on open colorectal cancer operation between using ultracision harmonic scalpel (UHS) and monopolar electrosurgery. Methods Fifty-nine patients from April to December in 2007, suffering colorectal cancer in the same treatment group, underwent open radical operation, 29 by GEN300 UHS (UHS group) and 30 by monopolar electrosurgery as control group. There was no significant difference between two groups among the factors of age, gender, tumor location, Dukes staging, gross morphology and degree of histological differentiation (Pgt;0.05). Results Shorter incision was applied in UHS group than in the control group. The mean operation time of UHS group and control group were 126 and 119 min, respectively (Pgt;0.05). The mean operative blood loss was 50 (20-140) ml in UHS group and 90 (40-200) ml in control group (Pgt;0.05). There were no significant differences among factors of bowel function recovery, mean hospitalization and incidence of complications between two groups (Pgt;0.05). The mean time for postoperative drainage fluid changing from bloody to serous was 8 (2-20) h in UHS group, however, 48 (16-80) h in control group (Plt;0.05). Conclusion In open colorectal cancer operation, benefits of using UHS are shorter incision and minimally invasiveness.
Objective To systematic evaluate the efficacy and safety of the endovascular aortic repair （endovascular stent placement） and open operation in treatment of acute Stanford type B aortic dissection. Methods The literatures about clinical controlled trials of endovascular aortic repair and open operation in treatment of acute Stanford type B aortic dissection that were included in CNKI， Wanfang data， VIP， Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials of the Cochrane Library， OVID， Pubmed Medline， EBSCO， EMBASE， Springer Link，Science Direct， and other databases from January 1991 to January 2013 were retrieved by computer. RevMan 5.1 software were used to analyze the clinical trial data. Results Eight trials （5 618 patients with acute Stanford type B aortic dissection） were included in the analysis.There was statistically significant difference of the 30 d mortality after operation between the endovascular repair group and the open operation group， which endovascular repair group was significantly better than the open operation group〔OR=0.55，95% CI （0.46-0.65）， P＜0.000 01〕. In addition， there were significant difference between the incidence of stroke 〔OR=0.57， 95% CI （0.39-0.84）， P=0.005〕， respiratory failure 〔OR=0.64， 95% CI （0.53-0.78）， P＜0.000 01〕， and cardiac complications 〔OR=0.49，95% CI （0.38-0.64），P＜0.000 01〕，which endovascular repair group was better than the open operation group. However，endovascular repair could not improve the postoperative outcomes of paraplegia〔OR=1.30，95% CI （0.82-2.05），P=0.26〕 and acute renal failure 〔OR=0.86，95% CI （0.41-1.80），P=0.69〕. Conclusion Endovascular repair for treatment acute Stanford type B aortic dissection is preferred method.
Objective To review the latest comparative research of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and traditional open approach. Methods The domestic and foreign literature concerning the comparative research of minimally invasive TLIF and traditional open TLIF was reviewed, then intraoperative indicators, length of hospitalization, effectiveness, complication, fusion rate, and the effect on paraspinal muscles were analyzed respectively. Results Minimally invasive TLIF has less blood loss and shorter length of hospitalization, but with longer operation and fluoroscopic time. Minimally invasive surgery has the same high fusion rate as open surgery, however, its effectiveness is not superior to open surgery, and complication rate is relatively higher. In the aspect of the effect on paraspinal muscles, in creatine kinase, multifidus cross-sectional area, and atrophy grading, minimally invasive surgery has no significant reduced damage on paraspinal muscles. Conclusion Minimally invasive TLIF is not significantly superior to open TLIF, and it does not reduce the paraspinal muscles injury. But prospective double-blind randomized control trials are still needed for further study.
Objective To compare the effectiveness of arthroscopic and open ankle arthrodeses. Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed from 30 patients undergoing unilateral ankle arthrodesis between January 2008 and January 2011. Of 30 patients, 14 underwent arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis (arthroscopic group), and 16 underwent open ankle arthrodesis (open group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, lesion type, disease duration, and preoperative American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score between 2 groups (P gt; 0.05). The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospitalization days, postoperative AOFAS score, and bony union rate were observed to evaluate the effectiveness. Results The operation time of arthroscopic group was significantly longer than that of open group (P lt; 0.05); the intraoperative blood loss and postoperative hospitalization days of arthroscopic group were significantly less than those of open group (P lt; 0.05). Superficial infection of incision occurred in 1 case of open group, and healing of incision by first intention was obtained in the other patients. All patients were followed up 12 months. No screw breakage was observed. The X-ray films showed bony fusion in 13 cases (92.86%) of arthroscopic group and in 10 cases (62.50%) of open group at 3 months after operation, showing significant difference (χ2=3.850, P=0.049); but no significant difference was found (χ2=0.910, P=0.341) in bony fusion rate between the arthroscopic group (14/14, 100%) and open group (15/16, 93.75%) at 12 months after operation. The AOFAS scores at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after operation were significantly higher than preoperative score in 2 groups (P lt; 0.05). There was no significant difference in AOFAS score between 2 groups at 1 and 3 months (P gt; 0.05), but significant differences were found at 6 and 12 months (P lt; 0.05). Conclusion The overall effectiveness of arthroscopic ankle arthrodesis is better than that of open ankle arthrodesis, which can decrease intraoperative blood loss, shorten hospitalization days, get higher bony fusion rate, and obtain good ankle function recovery.
Open surgery is an important part of vascular surgery. For vascular surgery diseases not suitable for endovascular therapy, adjuvant methods of endovascular therapy and the ultimate means of treatment after failure, vascular graft infection, open vascular trauma, various tumors involving blood vessels, vascular reconstruction and complications of organ transplantation, iatrogenic vascular injury, and so on, open surgical procedures still need to be provided for treatment and development. This paper lists the important role that open surgery plays in supporting the treatment of vascular related diseases and the development of the discipline in surgery and internal medicine, and emphasizes that open surgery is still a necessary quality for vascular surgeons, the basis and important guarantee for the development of the discipline, and the guarantee for the timely and effective treatment of various complex and difficult vascular surgical diseases.
ObjectiveTo summary the standard treatment for early gastric cancer. MethodsThe current early gastric cancer treatment guidelines around the world were analyzed and the standardized treatment patterns for early gastric cancer were concluded. ResultsThe accurate preoperative evaluation for early gastric cancer is the basis of standardized treatment which can be divided into staging evaluation and histological evaluation.The staging evaluation is focused on the gastric wall invasion and lymph node involvement of the tumor while the histologic evaluation emphasize the histological type and grading of the tumor.According to the precise evaluation for early gastric cancer, endoscopic surgery, laparoscopic surgery, open surgery, and multimodal therapy can be applied individually to the patients.Different treatment methods have their indications, but the indications of the therapies in different guidelines are suggested with slight differences. ConclusionIn clinical practice, the choice of treatment should be made with comprehensive consideration of diagnosis and individual characteristics of patients to achieve the most benefit on prognosis.
Aortic arch disease is one of the research hotspots and treatment difficulties in the field of aorta, including aortic arch aneurysms, pseudoaneurysm, ulcer, dissection and intramural hematoma. By summarizing the clinical data of the vascular surgery center of Fuwai Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences in the past five years and combining with the latest theories of the cutting-edge development of aortic surgery, the authors proposed the "HENDO" concept, including using hybrid technique (H), endovascular repair (Endo) and open surgery (O), properly to treat aortic arch pathologies individually. The authors advocated the establishment of HENDO team and cooperation mechanism in large aortic centers, to eliminate technical shortcomings of a single surgeon by fully mastering the three main technology clusters by teamwork. Accordingly, the best treatment for each patient can be administrated and the survival rate and quality of life can be improved eventually.
Objective To investigate short-term effectiveness and clinical application advantages of orthopedic robot-assisted resection for osteoid osteoma compared with traditional open surgery. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on clinical data of 48 osteoid osteoma patients who met the selection criteria between July 2022 and April 2023. Among them, 23 patients underwent orthopedic robot-assisted resection (robot-assisted surgery group), and 25 patients received traditional open surgery (traditional surgery group). There was no significant difference (P>0.05) in gender, age, disease duration, lesion location and size, and preoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and musculoskeletal tumor society (MSTS) score between the two groups. The surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative lesion localization time, initial localization success rate, infection, and recurrence were recorded and compared. VAS scores before surgery and at 24 hours, 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after surgery and MSTS score before surgery and at 3 months after surgery were assessed. Results All patients completed the surgery successfully, with no significant difference in surgical time between the two groups (P>0.05). Compared to the traditional surgery group, the robot-assisted surgery group had less intraoperative blood loss, shorter lesion localization time, and shorter hospitalization time, with significant differences (P<0.05). The initial localization success rate was higher in the robot-assisted surgery group than in the traditional surgery group, but the difference between the two groups was not significant (P>0.05). All patients in both groups were followed up, with the follow-up time of 3-12 months in the robot-assisted surgery group (median, 6 months) and 3-14 months in the traditional surgery group (median, 6 months). The postoperative MSTS scores of both groups improved significantly when compared to those before surgery (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the changes in MSTS scores between the two groups (P>0.05). The postoperative VAS scores of both groups showed a gradually decreasing trend over time (P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups after surgery (P>0.05). During follow-up, except for 1 case of postoperative infection in the traditional surgery group, there was no infections or recurrences in other cases. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative infection between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Orthopedic robot-assisted osteoid osteoma resection achieves similar short-term effectiveness when compared to traditional open surgery, with shorter lesion localization time.
The conventional total arch replacement (cTAR) with frozen elephant trunk implantation is commonly regarded as the gold standard for aortic pathologies involving ascending aorta and proximal aortic arch. By combining open supra-aortic vessels debranching and emerging endovascular technologies, hybrid arch repair (HAR) has been increasingly performed as a promising alternative in risky patients with comorbidities and frailties. Nevertheless, the advantages or disadvantages of hybrid arch procedures and cTAR in terms of survival and related outcomes remain controversial. This study is aimed to briefly review the role and results of HAR in the management of aortic arch pathology in comparison of contemporary cTAR.