AMD may be borderline superior over NIF to facilitate defibrillation in out-of-hospital patients with cardiopulmonary arrest. However, from the view point of preservation of brain function, NIF is not inferior to AMD for CPR.

BackgroundHigh-grade blunt renal trauma has been treated by arterial embolization (AE). However, it is unknown whether AE preserves renal function, because conventional renal function tests reflect total renal function and not the function of the injured kidney alone. Dynamic scintigraphy can assess differential renal function.MethodsWe performed AE in 17 patients with grade-4 blunt renal trauma and determined their serum creatinine (sCr) level and glomerular filtration rate (GFR; estimated by dynamic scintigraphy) after 3 months. In 4 patients with low GFR of the injured kidney (<20 ml·min-1·1.73 m-2), the GFR and sCr were measured again at 6 months. Data are presented as median and interquartile range (25th, 75th percentile).ResultsThe median GFR of the injured kidney, total GFR, and median sCr at 3 months were 29.3 (23.7, 35.3) and 96.8 (79.1, 102.6) ml·min-1·1.73 m-2 and 0.6 (0.5, 0.7) mg/dl, respectively. In the patients with low GFR (ml·min-1·1.73 m-2), the median GFR of the injured kidney, total GFR, and median sCr (mg/dl) were 16.2 (15.7, 16.3), 68.7 (61.1, 71.6), and 0.7 (0.7, 0.9), respectively, at 3 months and 34.5 (29.2, 37.0), 90.9 (79.1, 98.8), and 0.7 (0.7, 0.8), respectively, at 6 months.ConclusionsThe function of the injured kidney was preserved in all patients, indicating the efficacy of AE for the treatment of grade-4 blunt renal trauma.

Abstract.In recent years, the use of laparoscopic surgery has been expanded to include radical curative resection. In a previous study, 212 patients with primary colorectal cancer (stages I-III) underwent radical curative resection by hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (n=98) or conventional laparotomy (CL) (n=114) and were compared with respect to 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS). The study included 210/212 patients who were followed up to 5 years, including 96 patients who underwent HALS and 114 treated with CL. The two groups were matched for stage, clinical background, and postoperative management. Patient characteristics were compared and the 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS were determined. The 5-year follow-up rate was 97.6%. In stage I-III patients, 5Y-RFS and 5Y-OS showed no significant differences between HALS and CL. The patients with stage I disease accounted for 41.7% (40/96) of the patients undergoing HALS, while stage I patients only accounted for 23.7% (27/114) of the patients undergoing CL, and the difference was significant (P= 0.005). Stage II patients undergoing CL were older than those treated with HALS (P=0.017). However, there were no differences in the characteristics of stage III patients undergoing HALS or CL. In conclusion, HALS achieved a similar survival to CL in patients with stage I to III colorectal cancer. Compared with CL, HALS was performed more safely and achieved superior cosmetic results. IntroductionIn recent years, the indications for laparoscopic surgery have been expanded to include radical curative resection of early to advanced colorectal cancer and palliative surgery for stage IV disease (1-6). In Japan, laparoscopy-assisted colorectal surgery (pure LACS) is widely used. However, pure LACS has several disadvantages, such as requiring at least 2 physicians who are familiar with the procedure and prolonging the operating time, as well as needing more staff and limiting the availability of operating theaters. Previously, it was reported that pure LACS achieves the same or better outcomes as conventional laparotomy (CL) with regard to wound infection, hospital stay, and survival, together with superior cosmetic results (7-10). In Europe and the USA, hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) (HH) is more widely used than pure LACS. HH is characterized by: i) Providing the operator with palpation/tactile sensation, and allowing full grasping manipulation with the left hand and the possibility of smoothly removing even large and heavy tumors; ii) a shorter operating time than for pure LACS; and iii) a more rapid learning curve than for pure LACS (8,9,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17].In Japan, various surgical procedures are employed for colorectal cancer, including pure LACS (30-40%), CL (~50%), and other methods such as HALS and microincisional surgery (18). HALS is often regarded as being an optimal medium between CL and pure LACS (8,9,(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23). In Japan, HALS initially became popular for a short period of time during the introdu...

Minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery has become widespread and the indications for such surgery have recently been extended to various conditions, including rectal cancer. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy (CL) in patients with rectal cancer. Patients who underwent radical resection of stage I-III primary rectal cancer (n=111) were classified into those receiving HALS (n=57) and those receiving CL (n=54); the two groups were matched for stage and postoperative treatment. The 3-year relapse-free survival (3Y-RFS) and 3-year overall survival (3Y-OS) were calculated and compared between the two groups. Intraoperative blood loss, operating time, postoperative hospital stay and complications were also compared between the two groups. There were no significant differenceS in 3Y-RFS or 3Y-OS between the HALS and CL groups for patients with all-stage (I, II and III) rectal cancer. The mean (median) intraoperative blood loss was 344.0 (247.0) ML in the HALS group vs. 807.5 (555.5) ML in the CL group (P<0.001). The mean (median) postoperative hospital stay was 19.8 (17) and 25.5 (18.3) days, respectively (P=0.039). There were no significant differences in the operating time or the incidence of complications between the two groups. Based on these results, HALS was found to be comparable to CL regarding survival, while achieving less blood loss and a superior cosmetic outcome. However, longer follow-up is required to confirm these findings.

The present study aimed to compare the results of hand-assisted laparoscopic surgery (HALS) and conventional laparotomy (CL) at a single institution in Japan. Of the 212 patients with stage I/II/III colorectal cancer who received a curative resection, 98 patients underwent HALS and 114 patients underwent CL. The clinical background and post-operative management did not differ between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the 3-year relapse-free and 3-year overall survival rates between the HALS and CL groups for the patients in any stage. Blood loss during surgery was 250.1 and 135.5 ml (mean and median; the same hereafter) in stage I patients receiving HALS versus 608.2 and 315.5 ml in stage I CL patients (P=0.006), while it was 277.6 and 146 ml in stage II patients receiving HALS versus 548.6 and 347 ml in stage II CL patients (P=0.004). Post-operative hospital stay was recorded at 16.8 and 15 days in stage III patients receiving HALS versus 23.1 and 21 days in stage III CL patients (P=0.001). There were no significant differences in the operating time or complications between the two groups. These results indicate that the survival rate was comparable for HALS and CL, while HALS caused less surgical stress and achieved a better cosmetic outcome. The results of the final analysis of this cohort are awaited.