Aged ; Female ; Humans ; Ulcer

PURPOSE: Laparoscopy continues to be increasingly adopted for elective colorectal resections. However, its role in an emergency setting remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes between laparoscopic and open colectomies performed for emergency colorectal conditions. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent emergency laparoscopic colectomies for various surgical conditions was performed. These patients were matched for age, gender, surgical diagnosis and type of surgery with patients who underwent emergency open colectomies. RESULTS: Twenty-three emergency laparoscopic colectomies were performed from April 2006 to October 2011 for patients with lower gastrointestinal tract bleeding (6), colonic obstruction (4) and colonic perforation (13). The hand-assisted laparoscopic technique was utilized in 15 cases (65.2%). There were 4 (17.4%) conversions to the open technique. The operative time was longer in the laparoscopic group (175 minutes vs. 145 minutes, P = 0.04), and the duration of hospitalization was shorter in the laparoscopic group (6 days vs. 7 days, P = 0.15). The overall postoperative morbidity rates were similar between the two groups (P = 0.93), with only 3 patients in each group requiring postoperative surgical intensive-care-unit stays or reoperations. There were no mortalities. The cost analysis did not demonstrate any significant differences in the procedural (P = 0.57) and the nonprocedural costs (P = 0.48) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Emergency laparoscopic colectomy in a carefully-selected patient group is safe. Although the operative times were longer, the postoperative outcomes were comparable to those of the open technique. The laparoscopic group did not incur a higher cost.
Case-Control Studies ; Colectomy ; Colon ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Emergencies ; Hemorrhage ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Lower Gastrointestinal Tract ; Operative Time ; Retrospective Studies

The development of deep learning systems in artificial intelligence (AI) has enabled advances in endoscopy, and AI-aided colonoscopy has recently been ushered into clinical practice as a clinical decision-support tool. This has enabled real-time AI-aided detection of polyps with a higher sensitivity than the average endoscopist, and evidence to support its use has been promising thus far. This review article provides a summary of currently published data relating to AI-aided colonoscopy, discusses current clinical applications, and introduces ongoing research directions. We also explore endoscopists’ perceptions and attitudes toward the use of this technology, and discuss factors influencing its uptake in clinical practice.

Betacoronavirus ; Coronavirus Infections ; epidemiology ; transmission ; Disease Transmission, Infectious ; prevention & control ; Humans ; Incidence ; Pandemics ; Pneumonia, Viral ; epidemiology ; transmission ; Singapore ; epidemiology ; Surgical Procedures, Operative ; standards

Sarcopenia, which is characterized by progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, has been well described to be associated with numerous poor postoperative outcomes, such as increased perioperative mortality, postoperative sepsis, prolonged length of stay, increased cost of care, decreased functional outcome, and poorer oncological outcomes in cancer surgery. Multimodal prehabilitation, as a concept that involves boosting and optimizing the preoperative condition of a patient prior to the upcoming stressors of a surgical procedure, has the purported benefits of reversing the effects of sarcopenia, shortening hospitalization, improving the rate of return to bowel activity, reducing the costs of hospitalization, and improving quality of life. This review aims to present the current literature surrounding the concept of sarcopenia, its implications pertaining to colorectal cancer and surgery, a summary of studied multimodal prehabilitation interventions, and potential future advances in the management of sarcopenia.

Humans ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Operating Rooms ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Learning ; Delivery of Health Care