No abstract

A gastric glomus tumor (GGT) is a rare gastric submucosal tumor that can become malignant. A preoperative diagnosis would allow for a more informed decision regarding the treatment strategy. We present the case of an asymptomatic man with a GGT that was diagnosed during a preoperative examination. Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was performed in a 64-yearold man and revealed a submucosal tumor at the lesser curvature of the antrum of the stomach. Endoscopic ultrasonography showed a 12-mm-sized hypoechoic tumor in the second and third layers of the stomach wall. A histologic diagnosis of GGT was made using endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Abdominal contrast-enhanced computed tomography was performed, but the identification of the tumor was difficult owing to poor enhancement. The gradual growth of the tumor made it necessary to perform an operation. Laparoscopy and endoscopy cooperative surgery was performed without any complications. The tumor cells were immunohistochemically positive for alpha-smooth muscle actin, h-caldesmon, and collagen type IV but were negative for desmin, discovered on GIST-1, S-100 protein, cluster of differentiation 34, epithelial membrane antigen, and cytokeratin AE1/AE3. The final diagnosis was identical to the preoperative diagnosis made using EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA is a useful method for the preoperative diagnosis of small submucosal tumors, including GGTs.

No abstract

Background and AimThis study aimed to clarify the prognostic value of various inflammation‐based prognostic scores (IBPSs) in patients who underwent radical surgery for colorectal cancer (CRC) and to develop a novel prognostic index using IBPSs and other predictive factors.MethodsData of 1157 patients who underwent radical surgery for CRC were reviewed. The predictive value of various IBPSs in determining the CRC prognosis was compared. A novel index score based on the IBPSs and other parameters that were associated with survival in patients with CRC was established, and its usefulness was evaluated.ResultsThe patients were randomly divided into the training (n = 694) and validation (n = 463) sets. Male sex (P = 0.0001), age ≥ 75 years (P < 0.0001), a carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level of > 5 (P = 0.0009), a C‐reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR) of ≥ 0.04 (P = 0.0033), and a prognostic nutritional index (PNI) of < 43.1 (P = 0.0004) were poor independent prognostic factors of overall survival. The novel index score was calculated based on the scores of these five prognostic factors. The Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed that the CRC patients with higher novel index scores in the training and validation datasets had poorer overall survival.ConclusionsCAR and PNI were superior to other IBPSs for predicting the prognosis of CRC patients. The novel index score established based on sex, age, CEA level, CAR, and PNI can predict the prognosis of CRC with more precise and clearer stratification than the individual parameters alone.

BackgroundThis study aimed to clarify the safety and e cacy of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal perforation by comparing the clinical outcomes between laparoscopic and open emergency surgery for colorectal perforation. MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed the data of 100 patients who underwent surgery for colorectal perforation.The patients were categorized into two groups: the open group included patients who underwent laparotomy, and the laparoscopic group included those who underwent laparoscopic surgery. Clinical and operative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were evaluated. ResultsThe open and laparoscopic groups included 58 and 42 patients, respectively. More than half of the patients in both groups developed perforation in the sigmoid colon (open, 55.2%; laparoscopic, 59.5%).The most common cause of perforation was diverticulum, followed by colorectal cancer. The mean intraoperative blood loss tended to be lower in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (78.8 mL versus 160.1 mL; P=0.0756). Hospital stay tended to be shorter in the laparoscopic group than in the open group (42.5 versus 55.7 days; P=0.0965). There were no signi cant differences in either the short-or long-term outcomes between the two groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the choice of surgical approach (open versus laparoscopic) did not affect overall survival in patients with colorectal perforation. ConclusionsThe laparoscopic approach for colorectal perforation in an emergency setting is a safe procedure compared with the open approach. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a decrease in intraoperative blood loss and a shorter length of hospital stay. BackgroundIn recent years, the usefulness and safety of laparoscopic surgery have been demonstrated in various abdominal surgical procedures, such as cholecystectomy, gastrectomy, and colectomy [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Regarding colorectal diseases, several studies have compared open and laparoscopic surgery under various conditions, such as total colectomy for acute colitis, surgery for colorectal cancers, and colectomy for in ammatory bowel diseases [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. These studies suggest that the advantages of laparoscopic surgery