Dodsonjohannsen5735

rction.

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrafast and standard dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI in evaluating the residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer.

Sixty-seven consecutive patients underwent MRI after NAC. Visual analysis of enhancement was performed on ultrafast and standard DCE-MRI, and compared between no residual disease and residual disease groups. The lesion diameters measured on the last phase of ultrafast DCE-MRI and early and delayed phases of standard DCE-MRI were compared with pathological diameter of entire residual cancer and residual invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).

The visual analysis in the delayed phase of standard DCE-MRI exhibited the highest sensitivity (90%), whereas ultrafast DCE-MRI revealed the highest positive predictive value (92%). There were no significant differences between the diameters in the delayed phase of the standard DCE-MRI and the pathological entire residual cancer (p = 0.97), and the diameters in ultrafast DCE-MRI and the pathological residual IDC (p = 0.97).

The delayed phase of standard DCE-MRI may be effective for detecting the residual disease and evaluating the extension of entire residual cancer. Enhancement in ultrafast DCE-MRI may be strongly suggestive of the presence of residual disease, and effective for evaluating the extension of residual IDC.

The delayed phase of standard DCE-MRI may be effective for detecting the residual disease and evaluating the extension of entire residual cancer. Enhancement in ultrafast DCE-MRI may be strongly suggestive of the presence of residual disease, and effective for evaluating the extension of residual IDC.To assess the feasibility and operative outcomes of RARP following colo-rectal surgery. A prospective database of patients undergoing RARP is maintained at our Institution since January 2015. We reviewed all patients undergoing RARP after previous colo-rectal surgery. Overall, 49 (7.4%) of 658 RARPs were performed after previous pelvic surgery, 14 (2.1%) of which following colo-rectal surgery after an interval of 5 years. (a) Colo-rectal surgery. Previous colo-rectal surgery included resection of the left colon (n = 6), and right colon (n = 4), and rectum (n = 4). Histopathology showed pT0-T2N0 in 5, pT3N0-1 in 3, and benign conditions in 4. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) was elevated (4 ng/ml or greater) or slightly elevated (3.5-4 ng/ml) in 9 (65%) of 14 cases at the time of colo-rectal surgery. (b) Prostatectomy. Overall prostatectomy and adhesiolysis median operative times were 235 and 42 min, respectively. read more A robotic approach was accomplished in 11 cases with previous uncomplicated colo-rectal surgery; open conversion occurred in 3 cases. Risk factors for open conversion during RARP were history of multiple or complicated abdominal surgery, previous open conversion, and hospital stay > 10 days. Postoperative complications included anemization (n = 2), persistent drain output (n = 1), and urinary tract infection (n = 1). The robotic approach was successful in the case of previous uncomplicated colo-rectal surgery. The risk of intestinal injury during conversion might suggest a direct retropubic approach in case of previous multiple or complicated abdominal surgery. A planned elective colo-rectal surgery should include a thorough urologic evaluation, considering the risk of a subsequent prostate surgery.Robotic-assisted laparoscopic surgery attempts to facilitate rectal surgery in the narrow space of the pelvis. The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. Monocentric retrospective study including 300 patients who underwent robotic (n = 178) or laparoscopic (n = 122) resection between Jan 2009 and Dec 2017 for high, mid and low rectal cancer. The robotic and laparoscopic groups were comparable with regard to pretreatment characteristics, except for sex and ASA status. There were no statistical differences between groups in the conversion rate to open surgery. Surgical morbidity and oncological quality did not differ in either group, except for the anastomosis leakage rate and the affected distal resection margin. There were no differences in overall survival rate between the laparoscopic and robotic group. Robotic surgery could provide some advantages over conventional laparoscopic surgery, such as three-dimensional views, articulated instruments, lower fatigue, lower conversion rate to open surgery, shorter hospital stays and lower urinary and sexual dysfunctions. On the other hand, robotic surgery usually implies longer operation times and higher costs. As shown in the ROLARR trial, no statistical differences in conversion rate were found between the groups in our study. When performed by experienced surgeons, robotic surgery for rectal cancer could be a safe and feasible option with no significant differences in terms of oncological outcomes in comparison to laparoscopic surgery.When colonic graft is used as an esophageal substitute after esophagectomy, one or two feeding vessels of the colon are cut to obtain sufficient length, the graft is passed via the subcutaneous route, and microvascular anastomosis is often used to avoid fatal complications. Sixteen consecutive ileo-right colonic reconstructions via the posterior mediastinal or retrosternal route with preservation of all four colonic vessels were performed in the past eight years. We presented the surgical technique and evaluation of this surgical method. In 15 out of 16 consecutive cases, the graft could be pulled up to the neck through the posterior mediastinal or retrosternal route while preserving all four colonic vessels. Reconstruction was not possible in one patient because of ileocolic vessel injury during colonic mobilization. Anastomotic leakage occurred in three patients, but all were minor and were treated conservatively. There were no patients with graft necrosis resulting from insufficient blood supply. Ileo-right colonic reconstruction with preservation of all four colonic vessels through the posterior mediastinal or retrosternal route is a safe and feasible procedure and is considered the first choice for colonic reconstruction as an esophageal substitute.