Background: The last century has witnessed immense evolvement of management of patients with abdominal trauma. Moreover the recent trend has shifted to selective operative management rather than exploratory laparotomy in trauma patients with suspected intraabdominal injuries and is considered more rational as well. Diagnostic laparoscopy is highly sensitive in detecting intra-abdominal injury with subsequent reduction in the rate of negative laparotomy and procedure related morbidity. Objective: The study was carried out to find the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in abdominal trauma. Methods: An observational study was carried out in the casualty block of Dhaka Medical College Hospital from 1st June 2015 to 30th March 2016. A total of 50 successive patients were assigned in this study. All of them were admitted with abdominal trauma and underwent diagnostic laparoscopy during the period of 10 months. The study was designed to find out whether laparoscopy can help in identifying intra-abdominal injuries with consequent avoidance of unnecessary operative explorations. Results: Intra-abdominal injuries other than GIT perforation were diagnosed by laparoscopy with 100% accuracy but in case of bowel injury the diagnostic accuracy was 80%. Conclusion: Diagnostic laparoscopy is the procedure of choice in doubtful intra-abdominal injuries with impressive accuracy except for bowel injury. Subsequently it reduced the need for negative laparotomies with their procedure related adverse effects. Journal of Surgical Sciences (2018) Vol. 22 (1): 47-51

Recent discoveries over the last decade have led to a greater insight to the molecular and biologicalbehavior of GIST along with its expression of receptors like KIT and platelet derived growthfactor. Consequently the advent of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor imatinibmesylate has been aphenomenal example of targeted molecular therapy. The unique success of the targeted therapyin the management of GIST has enhanced the multidisciplinary management approach to thedisease. Careful and intense study of the treatment strategies in GIST may lead to new era in themanagement of cancer. Journal of Surgical Sciences (2016) Vol. 20 (2) :55-58

Background: There are many scoring systems that predict the risk of mortality with varyingdegrees of accuracy. The ideal scoring system for surgical outcome should be quick andeasy to use and should be applicable to all general surgical procedures. POSSUM(Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enumeration of Mortality and Morbidity) andP-POSSUM (Portsmouth POSSUM) are the most appropriate scoring systems currentlyavailable in general surgery to predict thirty days mortality and morbidity. Objective: The study was done to assess the value of POSSUM in predicting the morbidityrate and the value of P-POSSUM in predicting the mortality rate in general surgical patientsof our country. Methods: Aprospective study was performed in 120 general surgical patient. The risks ofmorbidity and mortality were calculated by using the POSSUM equation for morbidity andthe P-POSSUM equation for mortality in each patient. The predicted risks were comparedwith the observed risks of morbidity and mortality for 30 days after surgery and statisticallyanalysed. Results: The difference in p value of predicted risk of morbidity by POSSUM equation andobserved morbidity; calculated by chi square test(x2 =1.36, d.f=4,p=0.24,0/P ratio was1.18); which was not statistically significant. The predicted mortality by P-POSSUM equationand observed mortality; calculated by Fisher's exact test(p=1) was not found statisticallysignificant. The Pearson correlation has shown significant correlation at the 0.01 level (2tailed) for the observed and predicted mortality and morbidity(r=O. 701).ROC analysesshowed both POSSUM and P-POSSUM scores to be good predictors of 30-day morbidity andmortality with area under the curve values (AUC) of 0.887 and 0.991 respectively. ConclusionPOSSUM and P-POSSUM can be used as a valid tool for using risk prediction of morbidityand mortality in our set up. Journal of Surgical Sciences (2017) Vol. 21 (1) :11-14