IntroductionAbdominal injuries are responsible for 10% of the mortalities due to trauma. Delays in early diagnosis or misdiagnoses are two major reasons for the mortality and morbidity associated with abdominal trauma. The objectives of this study were to determine the frequency of visceral injuries in patients with abdominal trauma and compare the frequency of visceral injuries in patients with blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study from May 2016 to May 2018 of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) at Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center in Karachi, Pakistan. Patients were 12 to 65 years old and presented within 24 hours of abdominal trauma. We recorded the type of abdominal visceral injuries, such as liver, spleen, intestine, stomach, mesentery, and pancreas.ResultsThe mean patient age was 31 ±13 years. Penetrating trauma was found in most patients (n=72, 51%). Liver injuries were found in 37 patients (26.4%), spleen injuries in 29 patient (20.7%), stomach injuries in eight patients (5.7%), intestine injuries in 67 patients (47.9%), mesentery injuries in 21 patients (15%), and pancreas injuries in nine patients (6.4%). The type of abdominal trauma was found significantly associated with liver injury (p-value 0.021), and intestine injury (p-value <0.001).ConclusionPenetrating trauma (51.4%) was more common than blunt trauma (48.5%), and intestines are the most commonly affected by penetrating and blunt trauma injuries (70.1% and 47.8%, respectively). The liver is the most commonly affected (42.85%) in blunt trauma injuries, followed by the spleen (28.5%). The appropriate authorities should consider this information when instituting public health and safety initiatives.

No abstract

Our technique showed an effective way of doing pneumonectomy via VATS technique, which expands the use of VATS technique into pneumonectomies, with three intercostals incisions smaller than 5 mm, in addition to a single sub-xiphoid incision which can take 12 mm instruments.

Background The Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) and the Dutch Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer Audit (DUCA) have set standards in reporting outcomes after oesophagectomy. Reporting outcomes from selected high-volume centres or centralized national cancer programmes may not, however, be reflective of the true global prevalence of complications. This study aimed to compare complication rates after oesophagectomy from these existing sources with those of an unselected international cohort from the Oesophago-Gastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA). Methods The OGAA was a prospective multicentre cohort study coordinated by the West Midlands Research Collaborative, and included patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer between April and December 2018, with 90 days of follow-up. Results The OGAA study included 2247 oesophagectomies across 137 hospitals in 41 countries. Comparisons with the ECCG and DUCA found differences in baseline demographics between the three cohorts, including age, ASA grade, and rates of chronic pulmonary disease. The OGAA had the lowest rates of neoadjuvant treatment (OGAA 75.1 per cent, ECCG 78.9 per cent, DUCA 93.5 per cent; P &lt; 0.001). DUCA exhibited the highest rates of minimally invasive surgery (OGAA 57.2 per cent, ECCG 47.9 per cent, DUCA 85.8 per cent; P &lt; 0.001). Overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts (OGAA 63.6 per cent, ECCG 59.0 per cent, DUCA 62.2 per cent), with no statistically significant difference in Clavien–Dindo grades (P = 0.752). However, a significant difference in 30-day mortality was observed, with DUCA reporting the lowest rate (OGAA 3.2 per cent, ECCG 2.4 per cent, DUCA 1.7 per cent; P = 0.013). Conclusion Despite differences in rates of co-morbidities, oncological treatment strategies, and access to minimal-access surgery, overall complication rates were similar in the three cohorts.

Background Textbook outcome has been proposed as a tool for the assessment of oncological surgical care. However, an international assessment in patients undergoing oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer has not been reported. This study aimed to assess textbook outcome in an international setting. Methods Patients undergoing curative resection for oesophageal cancer were identified from the international Oesophagogastric Anastomosis Audit (OGAA) from April 2018 to December 2018. Textbook outcome was defined as the percentage of patients who underwent a complete tumour resection with at least 15 lymph nodes in the resected specimen and an uneventful postoperative course, without hospital readmission. A multivariable binary logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with textbook outcome, and results are presented as odds ratio (OR) and 95 per cent confidence intervals (95 per cent c.i.). Results Of 2159 patients with oesophageal cancer, 39.7 per cent achieved a textbook outcome. The outcome parameter ‘no major postoperative complication’ had the greatest negative impact on a textbook outcome for patients with oesophageal cancer, compared to other textbook outcome parameters. Multivariable analysis identified male gender and increasing Charlson comorbidity index with a significantly lower likelihood of textbook outcome. Presence of 24-hour on-call rota for oesophageal surgeons (OR 2.05, 95 per cent c.i. 1.30 to 3.22; P = 0.002) and radiology (OR 1.54, 95 per cent c.i. 1.05 to 2.24; P = 0.027), total minimally invasive oesophagectomies (OR 1.63, 95 per cent c.i. 1.27 to 2.08; P &lt; 0.001), and chest anastomosis above azygous (OR 2.17, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 2.98; P &lt; 0.001) were independently associated with a significantly increased likelihood of textbook outcome. Conclusion Textbook outcome is achieved in less than 40 per cent of patients having oesophagectomy for cancer. Improvements in centralization, hospital resources, access to minimal access surgery, and adoption of newer techniques for improving lymph node yield could improve textbook outcome.