Background Trans-abdominal rectopexy for complete rectal prolapse (CRP) reportedly yields more definitive results as compared with trans-perineal surgery. In the era of minimal access surgery, minimally invasive laparoscopic rectopexy has become a popular treatment option for patients with rectal prolapse (RP). Herein, we describe our preferred surgical procedure for the correction of RP and evaluate its results. We further aim to perform a comparative assessment between perioperative outcomes achieved with open and laparoscopic applications of this technique. Materials and methods This was a retrospective cross-sectional observational study conducted at a tertiary health care center in Maharashtra, India. We studied cases of RP who underwent laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy during the past 15 years (2005–2021), in our institution, operated upon by a single surgeon. Results Of the total 14 patients, 12 were managed with laparoscopic posterior mesh rectopexy. The remaining two underwent laparoscopic suture rectopexy. The mean operative time was 120 minutes. Constipation improved among 28.57%, remained the same among 21.42%, and worsened among 35.71% patients. No intra-operative blood transfusion was required. Mean length of hospital stay was 4 days. There were no recurrences over a mean follow-up period of 94 months, i.e., 7.83 years (range 7–197 months). Conclusions Laparoscopic posterior rectopexy can be safely performed in older patients to achieve early postoperative ambulation and significantly shorten the hospital stay. It may, therefore, be considered an effective treatment for CRP and urinary dysfunction. However, the incidence of de-novo constipation and worsening of pre-existing constipation is significantly high.

No abstract

Background: Conventional open appendicectomy is a common emergency surgical procedure being used for more than a century. Despite continuously increasing popularity of minimal access surgery, laparoscopic appendicectomy has not gained enough popularity.Methods: A prospective randomized study to compare laparoscopic and open appendicectomy for the treatment of appendicitis was carried out from April 2015 to October 2016. Thirty patients each were randomized to two groups. Decision to operate was taken on clinical grounds.Results: Twenty-five patients in each group were confirmed to be suffering from appendicitis. While alternative diagnosis could be established in 4 out of remaining 5 patients in laparoscopic group, in only 1 out of 5 patients from open appendicectomy definitive diagnosis for pain could be established. There was no significant difference in operative time between two groups. Patients in laparoscopic group had lesser postoperative pain scores and wound complications. They also got discharged and returned to normal activity earlier than those in open appendicectomy group.Conclusions: Laparoscopic appendicectomy has lesser postoperative morbidity and improves diagnosis in nonappendicitis patients.

Introduction Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RPF) is a rare fibro-inflammatory condition which is characterized by development of extensive fibrosis throughout the retroperitoneum. It is classically centred over the anterior surface of the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae. It results in entrapment and extrinsic compression of retroperitoneal structures. Presentation of the case We present the case of a 69 years old man who was reported to have right pelvi - ureteric junction obstruction on computed tomography, but turned out to have RPF. Discussion Retroperitoneal fibrosis commonly causes obstructive uropathy (either unilateral, bilateral or progressing from unilateral to bilateral) and if untreated, renal failure. It has high response/remission rates to glucocorticoid therapy. However, relapse rates are also high. Hence, close surveillance with serial laboratory and imaging investigations, after achieving remission, is key to long term disease control. Conclusion Although classical imaging findings, supportive laboratory markers and suggestive/diagnostic histopathology appearances for RPF are well documented, its accurate preoperative diagnosis is not always an assured certainty.

Partial nephrectomy, also called Kidney-sparing Surgery (KSS) or Nephron-sparing Surgery (NSS), is an operation wherein, only a cancerous renal tumour or diseased renal tissue is surgically removed; leaving behind as much healthy renal tissue as possible. Understandably, it was initially preferred in patients with solitary kidney and those, with concurrent bilateral tumours. Over the first two decades of the 21st century, Partial Nephrectomy (PN) has become the standard procedure for many renal tumours; even in unilateral disease. This is because of early pick up due to significant developments in imaging modalities and also, due to better understanding of the biology of renal tumours. With advances in minimal access surgery, partial nephrectomy too has come under its ambit. In the present case series, it's fascinating journey has been discussed- its exciting rise, subsequent downfall and then its unique rise again; as the preferred surgical therapy for many renal tumours, around the world. The purpose of reporting the present case series on Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy (LPN) performed for renal cancer, was to share the authors’ early experience and results on the topic and to compare them with the world literature. Also, the aim was to underscore the fact that, in an advanced laparoscopy set up, with optimum patient selection and availability of advanced laparoscopic skills, it is an effective and feasible operation. Herein, the authors have described three cases of totally LPN and review of literature on the same. Over an average follow-up period of 23 months, all three patients continue to be asymptomatic and disease free.