No abstract

Purpose -This article aims to suggest to managers involved in re-engineering projects a method to assess the feasibility of manufacturing re-insourcing. Design/methodology/approach -At first, an analysis of the textile sector is carried out. Subsequently, a methodology is described, able to assess the feasibility of manufacturing re-insourcing. As a case study, a high production shop is then proposed and sized for the quick response requirements of a company producing young apparel lines on behalf of third parties. Finally, an economic evaluation is carried out in order to assess the profitability of the re-insourcing strategy. Findings -A methodology which can aid managers to assess the feasibility of manufacturing re-insourcing in re-engineering programs is proposed. Originality/value -The proposed methodology is original.

Background. Endometrial cancer (EC) is one of the most common gynecologic malignancy, mostly in postmenopausal women. The gold standard treatment for EC is surgery, but in the early stages, it is possible to opt for conservative treatment. In the last decade, different clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who respond to conservative treatment. A lot of immunohistochemical markers have been evaluated to predict response to progestin treatment, even if their usefulness is still unclear; the prognosis of this neoplasm depends on tumor stage, and a specific therapeutic protocol is set according to the stage of the disease. Objective. (1) To provide an overview of the conservative management of Stage 1A Grade (G) 2 endometrioid EC (FIGO) and the oncological and reproductive outcomes related; (2) to describe the molecular alterations before and after progestin therapy in patients undergoing conservative treatment. Materials and Methods. A systematic computerized search of the literature was performed in the main electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane Library), from 2010 to September 2021, in order to evaluate the oncological and reproductive outcomes in patients with G2 stage IA EC who ask for fertility-sparing treatment. The expression of several immunohistochemical markers was evaluated in pretreatment phase and during the follow-up in relation to response to hormonal therapy. Only scientific publications in English were included. The risk of bias assessment was performed. Review authors’ judgments were categorized as “low risk,” “high risk,” or “unclear risk” of bias. Results. Twelve articles were included in the study: 7 observational studies and 5 case series/reports. Eighty-four patients who took progestins (megestrol acetate, medroxyprogesterone acetate, and/or levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices) were analyzed. The publication bias analysis turned out to be “low.” 54/84 patients had a complete response, 23/84 patients underwent radical surgery, and 20/84 had a relapse after conservative treatment. Twenty-two patients had a pregnancy. The length of follow-up was variable, from 6 to 142 months according to the different studies analyzed. Several clinical and pathological markers have been studied to identify women who do not respond to conservative treatment: PR and ER were the most studied predictive markers, in particular PR appeared as the most promising; MMR, SPAG9, Ki67, and Nrf2-survivin pathway provided good results with a significant association with a good response to progestin therapy. However, no reliable predictive markers are currently available to be used in clinical practice. Conclusions. The conservative treatment may be an option for patients with stage IA G2 EEC who desire to preserve their fertility. The immunohistochemical markers evaluation looks promising in predicting response to conservative treatment. Further large series and randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.

Introduction: In the last years, spinal anesthesia (SA) has emerging as alternative to general anesthesia (GA) for the laparoscopic treatment of gynecological diseases, for better control of postoperative pain. The aim of the review is to compare the advantages of SA compared to GA. Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (NRSs) about women who underwent SA and GA for gynecological laparoscopic surgery. Relevant data were extracted and tabulated. Results: The primary outcomes included the evaluation of postoperative pain (described as shoulder pain), postoperative nausea and vomiting, and operative times. One hundred and eight patients were included in RCTs, 58 in NRSs. The qualitative analysis had conflicting results and for the most of parameters (hemodynamic variables, nausea and postoperative analgesic administration) no statistically significant differences were observed: in the NRSs studies, contradictory results regarding the postoperative pain in SA and GA groups were reported. Regarding the quantitative analysis, in the RCT studies, women who received SA had not significantly lower operative times (RR -4.40, 95% CI -9.32 to 0.53) and a lower incidence of vomiting (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.55); on the other hand, in the NRS studies, women who received SA had longer operative times (RR 5.05, 95% CI -0.03 to 10.14) and more episodes of vomiting (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.97) compared to those with GA: anyway, the outcomes proved to be insignificant. Conclusions: Current evidence suggests no significant advantages to using SA over GA for laparoscopic treatment of gynecological diseases.

No abstract