Although surgery was the standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers, endoscopic resection is now a standard treatment for early gastrointestinal cancers without regional lymph node metastasis. High-definition white light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, and image-enhanced endoscopy such as narrow band imaging are performed to assess the edge and depth of early gastrointestinal cancers for delineation of resection boundaries and prediction of the possibility of lymph node metastasis before the decision of endoscopic resection. Endoscopic mucosal resection and/or endoscopic submucosal dissection can be performed to remove early gastrointestinal cancers completely by en bloc fashion. Histopathological evaluation should be carefully made to investigate the presence of risk factors for lymph node metastasis such as depth of cancer invasion and lymphovascular invasion. Additional treatment such as radical surgery with regional lymphadenectomy should be considered if the endoscopically resected specimen shows risk factors for lymph node metastasis. This is the first Korean clinical practice guideline for endoscopic resection of early gastrointestinal cancer. This guideline was developed by using mainly de novo methods and encompasses endoscopic management of superficial esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, early gastric cancer, and early colorectal cancer. This guideline will be revised as new data on early gastrointestinal cancer are collected.

Obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer represent challenging matters in terms of diagnosis, life-saving strategies, obstruction resolution and oncologic challenge. The aims of the current paper are to update the previous WSES guidelines for the management of large bowel perforation and obstructive left colon carcinoma (OLCC) and to develop new guidelines on obstructive right colon carcinoma (ORCC).
The literature was extensively queried for focused publication until December 2017. Precise analysis and grading of the literature has been performed by a working group formed by a pool of experts: the statements and literature review were presented, discussed and voted at the Consensus Conference of the 4th Congress of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) held in Campinas in May 2017.
CT scan is the best imaging technique to evaluate large bowel obstruction and perforation. For OLCC, self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), when available, offers interesting advantages as compared to emergency surgery; however, the positioning of SEMS for surgically treatable causes carries some long-term oncologic disadvantages, which are still under analysis. In the context of emergency surgery, resection and primary anastomosis (RPA) is preferable to Hartmann\'s procedure, whenever the characteristics of the patient and the surgeon are permissive. Right-sided loop colostomy is preferable in rectal cancer, when preoperative therapies are predicted.With regards to the treatment of ORCC, right colectomy represents the procedure of choice; alternatives, such as internal bypass and loop ileostomy, are of limited value.Clinical scenarios in the case of perforation might be dramatic, especially in case of free faecal peritonitis. The importance of an appropriate balance between life-saving surgical procedures and respect of oncologic caveats must be stressed. In selected cases, a damage control approach may be required.Medical treatments including appropriate fluid resuscitation, early antibiotic treatment and management of co-existing medical conditions according to international guidelines must be delivered to all patients at presentation.
The current guidelines offer an extensive overview of available evidence and a qualitative consensus regarding management of large bowel obstruction and perforation due to colorectal cancer.

Iatrogenic colonoscopy perforation (ICP) is a severe complication that can occur during both diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Although 45-60% of ICPs are diagnosed by the endoscopist while performing the colonoscopy, many ICPs are not immediately recognized but are instead suspected on the basis of clinical signs and symptoms that occur after the endoscopic procedure. There are three main therapeutic options for ICPs: endoscopic repair, conservative therapy, and surgery. The therapeutic approach must vary based on the setting of the diagnosis (intra- or post-colonoscopy), the type of ICP, the characteristics and general status of the patient, the operator\'s level of experience, and surgical device availability. Although ICPs have been the focus of numerous publications, no guidelines have been created to standardize the management of ICPs. The aim of this article is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of ICP, which are intended to be used as a tool to promote global standards of care in case of ICP. These guidelines are not meant to substitute providers\' clinical judgment for individual patients, and they may need to be modified based on the medical team\'s level of experience and the availability of local resources.

暂无摘要。

To determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) compared with \"usual care\" for treatment of perforated appendicitis in children. Secondary objective was to compare cost analyses using hospital accounting system data versus data in the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS).
Value-based surgical care (outcomes relative to costs) is frequently touted, but outcomes and costs are rarely measured together.
During an 18-month period, 122 children with perforated appendicitis at a tertiary referral children\'s hospital were treated using an evidence-based CPG. Clinical outcomes and costs for the CPG cohort were compared with patients in the 30-month period before CPG implementation (n = 191 children).
With CPG-directed care, intra-abdominal abscess rate decreased from 0.24 to 0.10 (adjusted risk ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.75). The rate of any adverse event decreased from 0.30 to 0.23 (adjusted risk ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.58-1.17). Mean total hospital costs per patient (hospital accounting system) decreased from $16,466 to $10,528 (adjusted absolute difference-$5451, 95% CI -$7755 to -$3147), leading to estimated adjusted total savings of $665,022 during the study period. Costs obtained from the PHIS database also showed reduction with CPG-directed care (-$6669, 95% CI -$8949 to -$4389 per patient). In Bayesian cost-effectiveness analyses, likelihood that CPG was the dominant strategy was 91%.
An evidence-based CPG increased the value of surgical care for children with perforated appendicitis by improving outcomes and lowering costs. Hospital cost accounting data and pre-existing cost data within the PHIS database provided similar results.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Ingested toothpicks are a relatively rare event, but may cause serious gut injuries with peritonitis, sepsis, or death. Numerous case reports describing the clinical course in this setting are available but there is no concise guideline. The aim of the present study was to develop practical guidelines to aid clinicians in the diagnosis and management of acute tooth pick ingestion.
METHODS: Our Medline search identified 116 publications containing case reports of ingested toothpicks. We then performed a retrospective analysis of patients\' characteristics, medical history, diagnostics, therapy, and clinical outcome.
RESULTS: A total of 136 cases (74 % male, age 52 [5-92] years) have been reported in the literature. From the available information, more than 50 % (n = 48) of patients were not aware of having swallowed a toothpick. The most common presenting symptoms were abdominal pain (82 %), fever (39 %), and nausea (31 %). The toothpick caused gut perforation in 79 % of all patients. The locations of toothpicks prior removal were esophagus (2 %), stomach (20 %), duodenum (23 %), small intestine (18 %), and large intestine (37 %). The diagnostic procedures included endoscopy (63 %), computed tomography scan (63 %), and ultrasound (47 %); however, in 35 % of cases these investigations failed to detect the toothpick. Therapy was surgery in most cases (58 %). The overall mortality was 9.6 %.
CONCLUSIONS: Toothpick ingestion is a medical emergency. Perforations of the intestine are common and the associated mortality is high. Adequate therapy depends on localization of the toothpick in the gastrointestinal tract. Ingested toothpicks should be kept in mind as an important differential diagnosis in patients with acute abdomen.

暂无摘要。