Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Background: s/Aims: This study aimed to compare the minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (MI-PDVR) and open pancreatoduodenectomy with venous vascular resection (O-PDVR) for periampullary cancer. Methods: Data of 124 patients who underwent PDVR (45 MI-PDVR, 79 O-PDVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, was retrospectively reviewed. Results: MI-PDVR is significantly better than O-PDVR in terms of perioperative outcomes (median operation time [452.69 minutes vs. 543.91 minutes; p = 0.004], estimated blood loss [410.44 mL vs. 747.59 mL; p < 0.01], intraoperative transfusion rate [2 cases vs. 18 cases; p = 0.01], and hospital stay [18.16 days vs. 23.91 days; p = 0.008]). The complications until the discharge day showed no significant difference between the two groups (Clavien–Dindo < 3, 84.4% vs. 82.3%; Clavien–Dindo ≥ 3, 15.6% vs. 17.7%; p = 0.809). In terms of long-term oncological outcomes, there was no statistical difference in overall survival (OS, 51.55 months [95% CI: 35.95–67.14] vs.median 49.92 months [95% CI: 40.97–58.87]; p = 0.340) and disease-free survival (DFS, median 35.06 months [95% CI: 21.47–48.65] vs.median 38.77 months [95% CI: 29.80–47.75]; p = 0.585), between the two groups. Long-term oncological outcomes for subgroup analysis focusing on pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma also showed no statistical differences in OS (40.86 months [95% CI: 34.45–47.27] vs.48.48 months [95% CI: 38.16–58.59]; p = 0.270) and DFS (24.42 months [95% CI: 17.03–31.85] vs. 34.35 months, [95% CI: 25.44–43.27]; p = 0.740). Conclusions MI-PDVR can provide better perioperative outcomes than O-PDVR, and has similar oncological impact.

Purpose: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD. Results: A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018). Conclusion Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

Purpose: The aim of the current study was to evaluate the adverse clinical impact of intraoperative conversion during laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). Materials and Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative clinical variables were compared between patients who underwent converted PD (cPD) and initially planned open PD (OPD) to investigate the clinical impact and predictive factors of intraoperative conversion during LPD. Results: A total of 171 patients were included. Among them, 31 patients (19.3%) were found to have intraoperative conversion during LPD. Failure of progression due to severe adhesion (12 patients, 7%) and major vessel invasion (7 patients, 4%) were the two most frequent reasons for conversion. On multivariate analysis, age [Exp(β)=1.044, p=0.044] and pancreatic texture [Expa(β)=2.431, p=0.039) were found to be independent factors for predicting intraoperative conversion during LPD. In comparative analysis with the OPD group, the cPD group had a longer operation time (516.8 min vs. 449.9 min, p=0.001), higher rate of postoperative hemorrhage (12.1% vs. 0.85%, p=0.008), higher reoperation rate (9.1% vs. 0%, p=0.01), and higher cost (21886.4 USD vs. 17168.9 USD, p=0.018). Conclusion Intraoperative conversion during LPD can have an adverse clinical impact on the postoperative course following LPD. Appropriate patients selection and improvement of surgical techniques will be crucial for unnecessary intraoperative conversion and safe LPD.

Laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy (LPD) in pancreatic cancer is primarily criticized for its technical and oncological safety. Although solid evidence has not yet been established, many institutions are performing LPD for pancreatic cancer patients, with continuous efforts to ensure oncologic safety. In this video, we demonstrated a case of standard LPD combined with vascular resection in pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Paronychia is a common infectious disease affecting fingernails and toenails. Although bacterial and fungal infections as well as mechanical trauma may play roles in the pathogenesis of this disease, there are few bacteriological studies about paronychia in military personnel. OBJECTIVE: To identify the causative bacteria of paronychia in military personnel. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the microbiological results of 145 patients who visited a tertiary referral hospital for Korean soldiers from August 2004 to October 2006. RESULTS: Twenty-eight different types of aerobic bacteria were identified, with the most common being Staphylococcus aureus (38.0%), Streptococcus pyogenes (7.2%), and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (5.4%). Staphylococcus aureus was identified mostly in finger and toe paronychial lesions and Pseudomonas aeruginosa was recovered commonly from toe paronychial lesions. All cases of paronychia were controlled by the combination of antiseptic dressing, topical antibacterial ointment, oral antibiotics, and antimycotic agents. CONCLUSION: The types of bacteria that most commonly caused paronychia in military personnel were Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus pyogenes, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Thus, the commonly used oral antibiotics for paronychia, such as amoxicillin-clavulanate, clindamycin, and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole, are good choices in the treatment of paronychia in military personnel.
Anti-Bacterial Agents ; Bacteria ; Bacteria, Aerobic ; Bandages ; Clindamycin ; Communicable Diseases ; Fingers ; Humans ; Military Personnel ; Nails ; Paronychia ; Pseudomonas aeruginosa ; Retrospective Studies ; Staphylococcus ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Streptococcus pyogenes ; Tertiary Care Centers ; Toes ; Trimethoprim, Sulfamethoxazole Drug Combination

Pseudomembranous necrotizing bronchial aspergillosis (PNBA) is a rare form of invasive aspergillosis with a very poor prognosis. The symptoms are non-specific, and the necrotizing plugs cause airway obstruction. Atelectasis and respiratory failure can be the initial manifestations. Recently, we treated an immunocompromised patient with PNBA, who presented with a sudden onset of atelectasis and acute respiratory failure. There were no preceding signs except for a mild cough and one febrile episode. Bronchoscopy revealed PNBA, and Aspergillus nidulans was cultured from the bronchial wash.
Adult ; Female ; Humans ; Immunocompromised Host ; Invasive Pulmonary Aspergillosis/*complications/*diagnosis ; Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute/complications ; Neutropenia/complications ; Pulmonary Atelectasis/*etiology ; Respiratory Insufficiency/*etiology

BACKGROUND/AIMS: JX-594 is an oncolytic virus derived from the Wyeth vaccinia strain that causes replication-dependent cytolysis and antitumor immunity. Starting with a cross-examination of clinical-trial samples from advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients having high levels of aldosterone and virus amplification in JX-594 treatment, we investigated the association between virus amplification and aldosterone in human cancer cell lines. METHODS: Cell proliferation was determined by a cell-counting-kit-based colorimetric assay, and vaccinia virus quantitation was performed by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) and a viral plaque assay. Also, the intracellular pH was measured using a pH-sensitive dye. RESULTS: Simultaneous treatment with JX-594 and aldosterone significantly increased viral replication in A2780, PC-3, and HepG2 cell lines, but not in U2OS cell lines. Furthermore, the aldosterone treatment time altered the JX-594 replication according to the cell line. The JX-594 replication peaked after 48 and 24 hours of treatment in PC-3 and HepG2 cells, respectively. qPCR showed that JX-594 entry across the plasma membrane was increased, however, the changes are not significant by the treatment. This was inhibited by treatment with spironolactone (an aldosterone-receptor inhibitor). JX-594 entry was significantly decreased by treatment with EIPA [5-(N-ethyl-N-isopropyl)amiloride; a Na+/H+-exchange inhibitor], but aldosterone significantly restored JX-594 entry even in the presence of EIPA. Intracellular alkalization was observed after aldosterone treatment but was acidified by EIPA treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Aldosterone stimulates JX-594 amplification via increased virus entry by affecting the H+ gradient.
Aldosterone/*pharmacology ; Aldosterone Antagonists/pharmacology ; Amiloride/analogs & derivatives/pharmacology ; Animals ; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular/blood/virology ; Cell Line, Tumor ; Humans ; Hydrocortisone/blood ; Hydrogen-Ion Concentration ; Liver Neoplasms/blood/virology ; Neuroprotective Agents/pharmacology ; Oncolytic Virotherapy ; Rabbits ; Spironolactone/pharmacology ; Vaccinia virus/*drug effects/genetics/metabolism/*physiology ; Virus Replication/*drug effects