PurposeLaparoscopy continues to be increasingly adopted for elective colorectal resections. However, its role in an emergency setting remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomies performed for emergency colorectal conditions.MethodsA retrospective review of all patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic colectomies for various surgical conditions was performed. These patients were matched for age, gender, surgical diagnosis and type of surgery with patients who underwent emergency open colectomies.ResultsTwenty-three emergency laparoscopic colectomies were performed from April 2006 to October 2011 for patients with lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding (6), colonic obstruction (4) and colonic perforation (13). The hand-assisted laparoscopic technique was utilized in 15 cases (65.2%). There were 4 (17.4%) conversions to the open technique. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (175 minutes vs. 145 minutes, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospitalization was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 days vs. 7 days, P = 0.15). The overall postoperative morbidity rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.93), with only 3 patients in each group requiring postoperative surgical intensive-care-unit stays or reoperations. There were no mortalities. The cost analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences in the procedural (P = 0.57) and the nonprocedural costs (P = 0.48) between the two groups.ConclusionEmergency laparoscopic colectomy in a carefully-selected patient group is safe. Although the operative times were longer, the postoperative outcomes were comparable to those of the open technique. The laparoscopic group did not incur a higher cost.

Objective: The objectives of the present study were to assess the nutritional status, identify factors for malnutrition risk and evaluate barriers to adequate nutrition among recipients of the Public Assistance (PA) scheme for socio-economically disadvantaged Singaporeans. Design: Using a cross-sectional study design, we assessed PA recipients' malnutrition risk using the DETERMINE Nutritional Health checklist and the full Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), as well as their nutritional knowledge, co-morbidity burden, depression risk, instrumental and basic activities of daily living (IADL and BADL), and awareness and utilization of available food services. In-depth interviews were also conducted on malnourished individuals (MNA score , 17) to understand barriers to adequate nutrition. Setting: Homes of community-living older adults and nursing homes of institutionalized older adults. Subjects: All PA recipients aged $55 years in Central Singapore District. Results: Four hundred and sixty-five of 511 (91?0 %) eligible PA recipients participated in the study. The prevalence of malnutrition in the study population was 2?8 %. However, 50?3 % were at risk of malnutrition. Among community-dwelling respondents, the risk of malnutrition was independently associated with age .75 years, currently unmarried, BADL impairment, depression risk and BMI , 19?0 kg/m 2 . Qualitative analysis revealed that financial, social and physical barriers and lack of knowledge were the main contributors to poor nutritional status. Only half were aware of subsidized food services and education increased interest in utilizing food services. Among nursing home respondents, those who were BADL impaired were more likely to be at risk of malnutrition. Conclusions: Among PA recipients, the prevalence of malnutrition is low but the risk of malnutrition is high. Education on adequate nutrition and food services are recommended.

RAL TME is associated with lower conversion and morbidity rates compared with HAL TME. The longer operating times and higher procedural costs are current limitations to its widespread adoption.