Aim: The study aim is to do the comparison of oncological and short-term results of open and laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in emergency setting. Study Design: This retrospective cohort research was held in the Department of Surgery, Civil Hospital, Karachi and Sheikh Zayed Medical College/ Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan for two-years duration from January 2020 to December 2021. Patients and Methods: after approval of this study and an informed consent agreement was signed by each participant. We performed an emergency analysis on 55 consecutive patients who received emergency open (n=40) or laparoscopic (n=15) resection for colorectal cancer. Results: The gender, age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, tumor location and prior abdominal surgery history were not significantly different between the laparoscopic and open groups. The T4 pathological tumors were more frequent in the open surgery group (50% vs. 13.3%; p=0.031) than in the laparoscopic group. The open surgery group also experienced high proportion of perforation (42.5% vs. 33.3%) and obstruction (47.5% vs. 26.7%) cases. In the laparoscopic group, bleeding or anemia were much common (33.3% vs. 7.5%; p=0.032). The laparoscopic group did not experience any open conversions. The open surgery group had a high pervasiveness of Hartmann's surgery (35%), whereas the laparoscopic group had high pervasiveness of low anterior resection (26.7%; p=0.064). The complication ration at 30-days for laparoscopy (37.5%) and open surgery (33.3%) was comparable (p=0.900). Conclusions: In some individuals with colorectal cancer, emergency laparoscopic surgery has advantages in relation of short-term and oncologic outcomes. As a result, skilled laparoscopic surgeons may actively consider using laparoscopy in life-threatening situations. Keywords: Laparoscopy, colorectal cancer, and emergency.

Introduction: Perforated duodenal ulcer is the communal emergency seen in surgical department, and postoperative complications of this emergency surgeries are very high which requires the related factors identification with this incidence. Aim: This study was designed to evaluate duodenal ulcer in older patients by revealing the patient's health status, early and late repair, choice of surgical procedure, and differences between older and younger duodenal ulcer patients. Study Design: A Retrospective study. Place and duration: In the Surgical Unit 2 of, Sheikh Zayed Medical College/ Hospital Rahim Yar Khan for two-year duration from January 2020 to December 2021. Methods: This study included 140 patients were alienated into 2 age groups as geriatric patients’ group (A) and adult age group (B). Patient age, gender, co-morbidities, drug use, presence of Helicobacter pylori infection, medical conditions that may have been affected by perforation, such as characteristic pain (severe upper abdominal pain or vague abdominal pain), extent of symptoms at presentation, smoking, outcomes of late repair versus early repair was recorded. Results: 140 patients were registered in the analysis. Group I (n = 70) consisted of geriatric patients (age> 65) and Group-II (n = 70) adults’ patients (age <65). Both groups have male dominance in this study. In both groups, the most common comorbidities were diabetes (25.7% and 8.6%, respectively) and arterial hypertension (42.8% and 41.4%, respectively), hypertension (p = 0.002) and coronary artery disease (p = 0.035) was much high in group I, while morbidity and mortality were higher in the group of elderly patients. Conclusion: Duodenal perforation is a serious disease that requires urgent surgical intervention, especially in the geriatric age. Keywords: Duodenal ulcer perforation, acute abdomen, geriatric surgery.

Background: Fluid replacement is one of the important issues in the management of burn cases. Objective: To compare the outcome between Ringer lactate and Hydroxyethyl starches (HESs) in cases with burn injuries. Methodology: Study design: Randomized controlled trial. Place and duration of study: Department of Plastic Surgery, Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Rahim Yar Khan, from June to December 2018. Study subjects selected were those who had a burn of any type (thermal, chemical, electric) and at least more than 10% of the surface area of the body. The cases were then divided into two equal groups. The fluid requirement was calculated according to the Parkland formula. After this, the cases in group A were given Ringers lactate solution 500 ml while those in group B were given 500 ml of 6% hydroxyethyl starches (HESs) and further fluid was administered in group A as ringer only and in group B as ringer and HES in a ration of 2:1. The cases were then followed to look for various outcomes in the form of urine output, serum creatinine, and mean hospital stay. Results: In this study, there were a total of 60 cases (30 in each group). The mean age in group A and B was 17.33±5.39 vs 19.11±4.79 years (p= 0.33). Mean hospital stay was 14.65±3.31 vs 13.49±2.78 days with p= 0.41. Mean urine output per day was 1645.81±143.47 vs 1705.31±165.83 ml with p= 0.43 and mean creatinine in group A and B was 1.79±0.38 vs 1.83±0.44 with p= 0.86. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in both the groups regarding urine output, creatinine, and mean hospital stay.