Rhabdomyolysis is a syndrome involving the breakdown of skeletal muscle causing myoglobin and other intracellular proteins and electrolytes to leak into the circulation. The development of rhabdomyolysis is associated with a wide variety of diseases, injuries, medications and toxins. While the exact mechanisms responsible for all the causes are not fully understood, it is clear that muscle damage can occur from direct injury or by metabolic inequalities between energy consumption and energy production. Rhabdomyolysis is diagnosed by elevations in serum creatine phosphokinase (CPK), and while there is no established serum level cut-off, many clinicians use five times the upper limit of normal ( approximately 1000 U/l). Rhabdomyolysis can be complicated by acute renal failure (occurring in 4%-33% of patients), compartment syndrome, cardiac dysrhythmias via electrolyte abnormalities, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. The mainstay of treatment is hospitalisation with aggressive intravenous fluid (IVF) resuscitation with the correction/prevention of electrolyte abnormalities. There are additional adjunctive therapies to IVF, such as alkalinisation of the urine with sodium bicarbonate, diuretic therapy or combinations of both; however the lack of large randomised control studies concerning the benefits of these treatments makes it difficult to make strong recommendations for or against their use in the treatment of rhabdomyolysis. Regardless of these controversies, the overall prognosis for rhabdomyolysis is favourable when treated with early and aggressive IVF resuscitation, and full recovery of renal function is common. Irrespective of the cause of rhabdomyolysis the mortality rate may still be as high as 8%. This is a comprehensive review of the pathophysiology, diagnosis, complications and treatment options for rhabdomyolysis.

IMPORTANCE Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality rate among gynecologic malignant tumors. Data are lacking on the survival benefit of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in women with ovarian cancer who underwent primary or interval cytoreductive surgery.OBJECTIVE To assess the clinical benefit of HIPEC after primary or interval maximal cytoreductive surgery in women with stage III or IV primary advanced ovarian cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSIn this single-blind randomized clinical trial performed at 2 institutions in South Korea from March 2, 2010, to January 22, 2016, a total of 184 patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer with residual tumor size less than 1 cm were randomized (1:1) to a HIPEC (41.5 °C, 75 mg/m 2 of cisplatin, 90 minutes) or control group. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Overall survival and adverse events were key secondary end points. The date of the last follow-up was January 10, 2020, and the data were locked on February 17, 2020. EXPOSURES Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy after cytoreductive surgery.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Progression-free and overall survival. RESULTSOf the 184 Korean women who underwent randomization, 92 were randomized to the HIPEC group (median age, 52.0 years; IQR, 46.0-59.5 years) and 92 to the control group (median age, 53.5 years; IQR, 47.5-61.0 years). After a median follow-up of 69.4 months (IQR, 54.4-86.3 months), median progression-free survival was 18.8 months (IQR, 13.0-43.2 months) in the control group and 19.8 months (IQR, 13.7-55.4 months) in the HIPEC group (P = .43), and median overall survival was 61.3 months (IQR, 34.3 months to not reported) in the control group and 69.5 months (IQR, 45.6 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group (P = .52). In the subgroup of interval cytoreductive surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the median progression-free survival was 15.4 months (IQR, 10.6-21.1 months) in the control group and 17.4 months (IQR, in the HIPEC group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.99; P = .04), and the median overall survival was 48.2 months (IQR, 33.8-61.3 months) in the control group and 61.8 months (IQR, 46.7 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.96; P = .04). In the subgroup of primary cytoreductive surgery, median progression-free survival was 29.7 (IQR, 17.2-90.1 months) in the control group and 23.9 months (IQR, 12.3-71.5 months) in the HIPEC group, and the median overall survival was not reached in the control group and 71.3 months (IQR, 45.6 months to not reported) in the HIPEC group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThe addition of HIPEC to cytoreductive surgery did not improve progression-free and overall survival in patients with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Although the results are from a subgroup analysis, the addition of HIPEC to interval cytoreductive surgery provided an improvement of progression-free and overall survival.

We investigated the association of colorectal cancer risk factors with different colorectal cancer subsites to assess etiological differences for cancers of the proximal colon, distal colon, and rectum. Included in this study were 869,725 men and 395,501 women who participated in a health examination provided by the Korean National Health System between 1996 and 1997. During up to 7 years of follow-up, 4,144 incident colorectal cancer cases were detected (3,051 men and 1,093 women). Greater height was associated with elevated risk for distal colon cancer and rectal cancer in both men and women. Family history of cancer was associated with higher risk for cancers of the proximal colon in men and distal colon in both men and women. Frequent alcohol consumption and consuming high amounts of alcohol were associated with elevated risk for distal colon cancer in men and higher risk for rectal cancer in women. Frequent meat consumption was associated with risk for proximal colon cancer in men and for rectal cancer in women. Our findings suggest that risk factors for colorectal cancer are different by subsites of colon and rectum, as well as by sex.

Compared with the three-port approach, SITS using the SILS port in PSP patients proved to be a safe and feasible procedure that can be clinically implemented without additional economic burden or operation time. Additionally, SITS showed better cosmesis with minimized neurologic sequelae, which contributed to higher satisfaction among patients. Progress in uniport instruments and surgical experience will lead to wider applications of SITS.

Our results showed that the SL can be performed with low operative risk and may offer superior survival and better postoperative pulmonary function compared with the PN in selected patients. If anatomically feasible, a SL must be considered as a favorable alternative to PN in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.