Karlsson Tranberg (syriametal0)

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes that were the secondary endpoints of a RCT of multi-port laparoscopic colectomy (MPC) versus SILC in colon cancer surgery. The actual long-term outcomes, such as the 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns after surgery, have not been evaluated by a RCT. Patients with histologically proven colon carcinoma located in the cecum, ascending, sigmoid or rectosigmoid colon clinically diagnosed as stage 0-III were eligible for this study. Patients were preoperatively randomized and underwent complete mesocolic excision. The 5-year RFS, OS, and recurrence patterns were analyzed (UMIN-CTR 000007220). Between March 1, 2012, and March 31, 2015, a total of 200 patients were randomly assigned to either the MPC arm (n = 100) or SILC arm (n = 100). The median follow-up for all patients was 61.0 months. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the 5-year RFS was 91.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 85.1%-96.9%] in the MPC arm and 88.0% (95% CI 82.1%-93.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio 1.37; 95% CI 0.58-3.24; P = 0.479). The 5-year OS was 95.0% (95% CI 91.1%-98.9%) in the MPC arm and 93.0% (87.1%-98.9%) in the SILC arm (hazard ratio 1.39; 95% CI 0.44-4.39; P = 0.568). There were no significant differences in the recurrence patterns between the 2 arms. Even though the results of the 5-year OS and RFS in this trial were exploratory and underpowered, there were no statistically significant differences between the SILC and MPC arms. SILC may be an acceptable treatment option for select patients with colon cancer. Even though the results of the 5-year OS and RFS in this trial were exploratory and underpowered, there were no statistically significant differences between the SILC and MPC arms. SILC may be an acceptable treatment option for select patients with colon cancer. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes of robotic versus laparoscopic ventral hernia repair (LVHR) at 1-year postoperative. Despite a relative lack of research at low risk for bias assessing robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR), the growth of RVHR has been rapid. We previously reported short-term results of the first randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR; there was no clear difference in clinical outcomes but increased operative time and cost with robotic repair. Patients from a multicenter, blinded randomized control trial comparing RVHR versus LVHR were followed at 1 year. Outcomes included wound complication (surgical site infection, surgical site occurrence, wound dehiscence), hernia occurrence including recurrence and port site hernia, readmission, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (functional status, pain, and satisfaction with repair and cosmesis). A total of 124 patients were randomized and 113 patients (91%; 60 robot, 53 laparoscopic) completed 1-year follow-up. Baseline demographics were similar in both groups. No differences were seen in wound complication (15% vs 15%; P = 0.899), hernia recurrence (7% vs 9%; P = 0.576), or readmission (2% vs 6%; P = 0.251). No patients underwent reoperation in the robotic arm, whereas 5 (9%) did in the laparoscopic arm (P = 0.020). No differences were seen in patient-reported outcomes. selleck products Both arms reported clinically significant improvements in functional status, low pain scores, and high satisfaction scores at 1-year post repair. This study confirms that robotic ventral hernia repair is safe when compared to laparoscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. This study confirms that robotic ventral hernia repair is safe when compared to laparoscopy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings. Determine the utility of routine esophagograms following hiatus hernia repair and its impact on patient outcomes. Hiatus hernia repairs are common. Earl