BACKGROUND: Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) requires urgent and effective treatment. Recently, midazolam was suggested as a useful drug in controlling RSE. In order to evaluate the effectiveness and adverse effects of midazolam, we compared midazolam with thiopental sodium. METHODS: Fourteen consecutive RSE in 13 patients from January 1998 to August 1999 were treated. Two RSE were happened in one patient. When the SE was refractory as a result of standard treatment, midazolam and thiopental sodium was alternatively used as therapeutic agent. RESULTS: Out of 9 RSE treated with midazolam, 5 were resolved. Four unresolved RSE received additional thiopental sodium. Thiopental sodium was initially administered in 5 out of 14 RSE. Among the 5 RSE improved by midazolam, no one had midazo-lam- induced hypotension or pneumonia. Three patients had respiratory suppression and needed artificial ventilation. RSE was controlled in 2 out of 4 patients treated with thiopental sodium after midazolam. In these patients, hypoten-sion was developed in 3, pneumonia in 2, and respiratory suppression in all. In 5 RSE treated with thiopental sodium alone, RSE were successfully treated in 3 patients. Complications were hypotension in 2, pneumonia/unknown infec-tion in 3, and respiratory suppression in 4. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam was comparably effective as thiopental sodium in the treatment of RSE, with less adverse effects. We suggest that midazolam be used in the treatment of RSE before thiopental sodium is administered.
Humans ; Hypotension ; Midazolam* ; Pneumonia ; Status Epilepticus* ; Thiopental* ; Ventilation

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS: We aimed to to evaluate the feasibility of laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) in patients with previous upper abdominal surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed on data from the attempted laparoscopic common bile duct exploration in 44 patients. Among them, 5 patients with previous lower abdominal operation were excluded. 39 patients were divided into two groups according to presence of previous upper abdominal operation; Group A: patients without history of abdominal operation. (n=27), Group B: patients with history of upper abdominal operation. Both groups (n=12) were compared to each other, with respect to clinical characteristics, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, open conversion rate, postoperative complication, duct clearance and mortality. RESULTS: All of the 39 patients received laparoscopic common bile duct exploration and choledochotomy with T-tube drainage (n=38 [97.4%]) or with primary closure (n=1). These two groups were not statistically different in gender, mean age and presence of co-morbidity, mean operation time (164.5+/-63.1 min in group A and 134.8+/-45.2 min in group B, p=0.18) and postoperative hospital stay (12.6+/-5.7 days in group A and 9.8+/-2.9 days in group B, p=0.158). Duct clearance and complication rates were comparable (p>0.05). 4 cases were converted to open in group A and 1 case in group B respectively. In group A (4 of 27 (14.8%) and 1 of 12 (8.3%) in group B, p=0.312) Trocar or Veress needle related complication did not occur in either group. CONCLUSIONS: LCBDE appears to be a safe and effective treatment even in the patients with previous upper abdominal operation if performed by experienced laparoscopic surgeon, and it can be the best alternative to failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for difficult cholelithiasis.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Cholelithiasis ; Common Bile Duct ; Drainage ; Humans ; Length of Stay ; Needles ; Postoperative Complications ; Retrospective Studies ; Surgical Instruments

PURPOSE: The implementation of the Korean diagnosis-related groups (DRG) payment system has been recently introduced in selected several diseases including appendectomy in Korea. Here, we report the early outcomes with regard to clinical aspects and medical costs of the Korean DRG system for appendectomies in Seoul Metropolitan Government - Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center throughout comparing before and after introduction of DRG system. METHODS: The DRG system was applied since January 2013 at our institute. After the DRG system, we strategically designed and applied our algorithm for the treatment of probable appendicitis. We reviewed the patients who were treated with a procedure of appendectomy for probable appendicitis between July 2012 and June 2013, divided two groups based on before and after the application of DRG system, and compared clinical outcomes and medical costs. RESULTS: Total 416 patients were included (204 patients vs. 212 patients in the group before vs. after DRG). Shorter hospital stays (2.98 +/- 1.77 days vs. 3.82 +/- 1.84 days, P < 0.001) were found in the group after DRG. Otherwise, there were no significant differences in the perioperative outcomes and medical costs including costs for first hospitalization and operation, costs for follow-up after discharge, frequency of visits of out-patient's clinic or Emergency Department or rehospitalization. CONCLUSION: In the Korean DRG system for appendectomy, there were no significant differences in perioperative outcomes and medical costs, except shorter hospital stay. Further studies should be continued to evaluate the current Korean DRG system for appendectomy and further modifications and supplementations are needed in the future.
Appendectomy* ; Appendicitis ; Diagnosis-Related Groups* ; Emergency Service, Hospital ; Follow-Up Studies ; Health Care Costs ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Korea ; Length of Stay ; Local Government ; Prospective Payment System ; Seoul