Fwd: What's new for 'Actualización TEM' in PubMed

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Rikibelda

unread,

Jun 1, 2011, 8:54:19 AM6/1/11

to actualiz...@googlegroups.com

http://coloprocto.wordpress.com/

Inicio del mensaje reenviado:

De: My NCBI <efb...@mail.nih.gov>
Fecha: 1 de junio de 2011 13:00:13 GMT+02:00
Para: <riki...@hotmail.com>
Asunto: What's new for 'Actualización TEM' in PubMed
Responder a: riki...@hotmail.com

This message contains My NCBI what's new results from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM).
Do not reply directly to this message.

Sender's message: Nueva Bibliografía del TEM
Sent on Wednesday, 2011 Jun 01
Search "Rectum"[Mesh] OR "Rectal Neoplasms"[Mesh] AND "Microsurgery"[Mesh]
Click here to view complete results in PubMed. (Results may change over time.)
To unsubscribe from these e-mail updates click here.

PubMed Results
Item 1 of 1

1. Am J Surg. 2011 Mar;201(3):353-7; discussion 357-8.
International trends in surgical treatment of rectal cancer.
Augestad KM, Lindsetmo RO, Reynolds H, Stulberg J, Senagore A, Champagne B, Heriot AG, Leblanc F, Delaney CP.
Source
Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106-5047, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Surgical technique might influence rectal cancer survival, yet international practices for surgical treatment of rectal cancer are poorly described.
METHODS:
We performed a cross-sectional survey in a cohort of experienced colorectal surgeons representing 123 centers.
RESULTS:
Seventy-one percent responded, 70% are from departments performing more than 50 proctectomies annually. More than 50% defined the rectum as "15 cm from the verge." Seventy-two percent perform laparoscopic proctectomy, 80% use oral bowel preparation, 69% perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, 76% divert stomas as routine for colo-anal anastomosis, and 63% use enhanced recovery protocols. Different practices exist between US and non-US surgeons: 15 cm from the verge to define the rectum (34% vs 59%; P = .03), personally perform laparoscopic resection (82% vs 66%; P = .05), rectal stump washout (36% vs 73%; P = .0001), always drain after surgery (23% vs 42%; P = .03), transanal endoscopic microsurgery for T2N0 in medically unfit patients (39% vs 61%; P = .0001).
CONCLUSIONS:
Wide international variations in rectal cancer management make outcome comparisons challenging, and consensus development should be encouraged.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
PMID:

21367378
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

1.	Am J Surg. 2011 Mar;201(3):353-7; discussion 357-8. International trends in surgical treatment of rectal cancer. Augestad KM, Lindsetmo RO, Reynolds H, Stulberg J, Senagore A, Champagne B, Heriot AG, Leblanc F, Delaney CP. Source Division of Colorectal Surgery, University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland, OH 44106-5047, USA. Abstract BACKGROUND: Surgical technique might influence rectal cancer survival, yet international practices for surgical treatment of rectal cancer are poorly described. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey in a cohort of experienced colorectal surgeons representing 123 centers. RESULTS: Seventy-one percent responded, 70% are from departments performing more than 50 proctectomies annually. More than 50% defined the rectum as "15 cm from the verge." Seventy-two percent perform laparoscopic proctectomy, 80% use oral bowel preparation, 69% perform high ligation of the inferior mesenteric artery, 76% divert stomas as routine for colo-anal anastomosis, and 63% use enhanced recovery protocols. Different practices exist between US and non-US surgeons: 15 cm from the verge to define the rectum (34% vs 59%; P = .03), personally perform laparoscopic resection (82% vs 66%; P = .05), rectal stump washout (36% vs 73%; P = .0001), always drain after surgery (23% vs 42%; P = .03), transanal endoscopic microsurgery for T2N0 in medically unfit patients (39% vs 61%; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Wide international variations in rectal cancer management make outcome comparisons challenging, and consensus development should be encouraged. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
	PMID: 21367378 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]