Objective Maxillofacial fractures with concomitant laryngeal injuries put both the quality and maintenance of life in jeopardy. Because of its low incidence, it is often overlooked in the clinical setting. The purpose of this study is to review the incidence, clinical presentations, managements, and outcomes of these patients. Methods A retrospective analysis of medical records from 2008 to 2015 was conducted at a single institute. A case series (n = 12, which contributed 22.2% of laryngeal injuries in our institute) of these patients was presented, and propensity score matching was applied for further statistical analysis. Results When comparing patients who sustained maxillofacial fractures with concomitant laryngeal injuries with patients with only maxillofacial fractures and no laryngeal injuries, subcutaneous emphysema (83.3% vs 4.2%, P < 0.001), neck pain (75.0% vs 6.3%, P < 0.001), dyspnea (75.0% vs 0%, P < 0.001), hoarseness (41.7% vs 0%, P < 0.001), neck swelling (66.7% vs 4.2%, P = 0.012), stridor (16.7% vs 0%, P = 0.037), hemoptysis (16.7% vs 0%, P = 0.037), and thoracic trauma (58.3% vs 10.4%, P = 0.001) all showed significant differences. The length of intensive care unit stay (7.42 days vs 3.21 days, P = 0.008), ventilator use (66.7% vs 18.8%, P = 0.002), and tracheostomy (58.3% vs 0%, P < 0.001) were also significantly different. Conclusions A significant portion of laryngeal injuries is concurrent with maxillofacial fractures. As a craniofacial surgeon, we should be alert to the signs of laryngeal injury. Diagnosis of laryngeal injuries should be established before definitive surgery for maxillofacial fractures.
Acute cholecystitis and several gallbladder stone-related conditions, such as impacted common bile duct stones, cholangitis, and biliary pancreatitis, are common medical conditions in daily practice. An early cholecystectomy or drainage procedure with delayed cholecystectomy is the current standard of treatment based on published clinical guidelines. Cirrhosis is not only a condition of chronically impaired hepatic function but also has systemic effects in patients. In cirrhotic individuals, several predisposing factors, including changes in the bile acid composition, increased nucleation of bile, and decreased motility of the gallbladder, contribute to the formation of biliary stones and the possibility of symptomatic cholelithiasis, which is an indication for surgical treatment. In addition to these predisposing factors for cholelithiasis, systemic effects and local anatomic consequences related to cirrhosis lead to anesthesiologic risks and perioperative complications in cirrhotic patients. Therefore, the treatment of the aforementioned biliary conditions in cirrhotic patients has become a challenging issue. In this review, we focus on cholecystectomy for cirrhotic patients and summarize the surgical indications, risk stratification, surgical procedures, and surgical outcomes specific to cirrhotic patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis.
Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has become the treatment of choice for gallbladder lesions, but it is not a pain-free procedure. This study explored the pain relief provided by combined wound and intraperitoneal local anesthetic use for patients who are undergoing LC.Two-hundred and twenty consecutive patients undergoing LC were categorized into 1 of the following 4 groups: local wound anesthetic after LC either with an intraperitoneal local anesthetic (W + P) (group 1) or without an intraperitoneal local anesthetic (W + NP) (group 2), or no local wound anesthetic after LC either with intraperitoneal local anesthetic (NW + P) (group 3) or without an intraperitoneal local anesthetic (NW + NP) (group 4). A visual analog scale (VAS) was used to assess postoperative pain. The amount of analgesic used and the duration of hospital stay were also recorded.The VAS was significantly lower immediately after LC for the W + P group than for the NW + NP group (5 vs. 6; p = 0.012). Patients in the W + P group received a lower total amount of meperidine during their hospital stay. They also had the shortest hospital stay after LC, compared to the patients in the other groups.Combined wound and intraperitoneal local anesthetic use after LC significantly decreased the immediate postoperative pain and may explain the reduced use of meperidine and earlier discharge of patients so treated.
Imatinib mesylate (IM) has substantial efficacy in patients with metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), and pathological complete response (pCR) following IM treatment has been sporadically reported; however, its clinical significance for GIST needs to be clarified.From 2001 to 2010, 26 out of 171 patients with metastatic GIST who received IM with response or stable disease underwent operation. Among them, 12 operations with pCR were compared to 14 operations without pCR regarding clinicopathological features, mutation status, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Following the operation, each tumor was assessed immunohistologically, and genetic analysis was performed on the tumor tissue.Twelve out of 26 (46.2%) patients with metastatic GIST who received IM with response or stable disease had pCR. After a median follow-up of 40.8 months, patients with pCR had significantly better PFS and OS than those without pCR [2-year PFS and OS: 82.5% and 100% versus 35.6% and 49.4%, (p=0.014 and p=0.004) respectively]. Predictive factors for pCR were: origin of GIST, response after IM therapy, and duration of IM use before operation. Patients without pCR had a significantly higher frequency of secondary mutation when compared to those with pCR (47.4% versus 0%; p=0.004).Patients with colorectal GIST receiving IM who responded more quickly to IM treatment prior to surgery had a higher chance of pCR. pCR results in significantly favorable PFS and OS, however, IM cannot be withdrawn. Patients without pCR had a significantly higher frequency of secondary mutation when compared to those with pCR.
The long-term treatment trends of splenic injuries can provide guidance when treating trauma patients. The nonoperative management (NOM) of splenic injuries was introduced in early 1989. After decades of development, it has proven to be safe and is now the primary treatment choice worldwide. However, there remains a lack of nationwide registry data to support the feasibility and efficiency of NOM.We used the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database to conduct a whole population-based cohort study. Patients admitted with blunt splenic injuries from 2002 to 2013 were identified. Demographic data, management methods, associated injuries, comorbidities and outcome parameters were collected. Patients were divided into 2 groups by the type of admitting institution: a tertiary center or a non-center hospital. We also used 4 years as an interval to analyze the changes in epidemiological data and treatment trends. Comparisons of the results of NOM and surgical management were also performed.A total of 12,455 patients were admitted with blunt splenic injuries between 2002 and 2013. Among the 11,551 patients treated in a single hospital after admission, patients underwent NOM more frequently at tertiary centers than at non-center hospitals (64.6% vs 50.3%). During the 12-year study period, the NOM rate increased from 56 to 73% in tertiary centers, while in noncenter hospitals, the rate only increased from 43 to 58%. The mortality rate decreased in tertiary centers from 8.9 to 7.2%, with no apparent change in noncenter hospitals. Complications occurred more frequently in the surgical management group.There is a trend toward the use of NOM for blunt splenic injury treatments, and the outcomes from the NOM groups were not inferior to those of the operation group. In addition, tertiary centers performed more NOM than did non-center hospitals and better met the international consensus.
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='rotate(60)'/%3e%3ccircle r='17' fill='%23000095'/%3e%3ccircle r='15' fill='%23fff'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)
