No abstract

The benefits of the laparoscopic mesh technique, compared to the open technique, include a shorter hospital stay, less postoperative pain, and possibly, a reduction in wound and mesh complications. Regarding the recurrence rate, the two techniques show similar results.

In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the weekly combination of etoposide, leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) when administered as second-line chemotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory advanced colorectal cancer (ACC), previously treated with weekly LV+5-FU. Etoposide was administered at 3 different dose levels (DLs), in 3 groups of 20 patients each (total: 60); DL-I: etoposide 80 mg/m2, DL-II: etoposide 120 mg/m2, and DL-III: etoposide 180 mg/m2, in 45 min i.v. infusion, and followed in all levels by LV 100 mg/m2 i.v. over 1 hour and 5-FU 500 mg/m2 i.v. bolus. Treatment was administered weekly until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. No patients at DL-I responded, while 2 patients at DL-II and 3 at DL-III had a partial response (PR). Stable disease (SD) rates were as follows; at DL-I: 2, DL-II: 8 and DL-III: 9. More patients in DL-I progressed (n = 19) compared to DL-II (n=10) and DL-II (n = 8) (p < 0.0007). Time to progression was for DL-I, -II, -III: 17, 15, and 14 weeks, respectively. Median survival was DL-I, -II, -III: 30, 30, and 32.5 weeks, respectively. Toxicity consisted mainly of neutropenia, diarrhea and mucositis at all DLs, and was significantly more severe in DL-III. No difference was noted in responses between DL-II and DL-III. The authors conclude that the combination of etoposide with LV+5-FU has limited activity when administered after failure of weekly LV+5-FU in patients with ACC and should not be recommended for further evaluation.

Teicoplanin is a glycopeptide antibiotic that is administered both intramuscularly and intravenously. It has a prolonged half-life and a less toxic profile in comparison to those of vancomycin. The efficacy of a single dose of teicoplanin (18 mg/kg of body weight given intramuscularly) for the prevention of endocarditis due to Streptococcus oralis, Enterococcus faecium, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) was evaluated after applying the rabbit model. Vancomycin at a single dose of 30 mg/kg given intravenously was used as the comparative agent for the prevention of endocarditis due to MRSA and E. faecium, while ampicillin at a single dose of 40 mg/kg given intravenously was used as the comparative agent for the prevention of endocarditis due to S. oralis. Rabbits in the teicoplanin group were infected at 1 h postdosing with approximately 10(7) CFU of each strain. Rabbits in the other groups were infected at 0.5 h postdosing with approximately 10(7) CFU of S. oralis (ampicillin group) or E. faecium and MRSA (vancomycin group). All rabbits were sacrificed 5 days later. Teicoplanin and vancomycin protected the animals challenged with E. faecium by 87.5 and 50%, respectively, and protected the animals challenged with MRSA by 100 and 92%, respectively. Teicoplanin and ampicillin protected the animals challenged with S. oralis by 100 and 77%, respectively. Prevention of endocarditis by teicoplanin was likely to be due to a prolonged inhibition of bacterial growth by the sustained supra-MICs. It is concluded that teicoplanin is very effective in preventing experimental streptococcal, enterococcal, and staphylococcal endocarditis and may be an attractive alternative antibiotic in patients allergic to beta-lactams, especially in the outpatient setting.

No abstract