Upper gastrointestinal bleeding due to left side portal hypertension after pancreatic surgery

Left-side portal hypertension(LSPH)is a rare cause of intraabdominal venous hypertension.In most of cases,LSPH is due to pancreatic diseases,especially chronic pancreatitis,but it is also described in other abdominal diseases(i.e.,retroperitoneal fibrosis or perineal abscess)after abdominal surgery(i.e.,pancreatic surgery,liver transplantation)or endovascular procedures[1–4].

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Artemisinin-Based Combination Therapies for Treating Uncomplicated Falciparum Malaria in Sub-Saharan African Countries: An Update on the Changes in Efficacy Using Network Meta-Analysis

Background: Several artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACT) are available to treat uncomplicated malaria in Africa. The present study aimed to assess the ranking of their efficacy and tolerance. Methods: A database of randomized controlled trials was retrieved from published papers. Network meta-analysis was used to compare efficacy on day 28 and day 42 after initiation of treatment. Age covariate effect on treatment outcome was assessed, and a modeling approach to reduce heterogeneity among trials was evaluated under the hypothesis of consistency in a meta-regression. Safety and adverse events were compared among different ACTs. A Bayesian analysis was performed to implement the consistency models using WinBUGS software. The results were compared to those of the frequentist approach using the R software. Results: Eighty-one articles, in which a total of 15 different ACTs were tested in more than 36,000 patients, were included. On day 28, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DHPP) was more effective than artemether-lumefantrine (AL) before (odds ratio [OR], 1.83;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31 - 2.56) and after age-covariate adjustment (OR, 1.70;95% CI, 1.20 - 2.43). The result was similar on day 42. DHPP occupied the top rank. The risk of having cough, diarrhoea or headache post-treatment was significantly lower with DHPP than AL. Artesunate-mefloquine (ASMQ) was associated with a significantly lower prevalence of vomiting or nausea (OR, 0.80;95% CI, 0.48 - 1.30) and headache (OR, 0.53;95% CI, 0.40 - 0.68) compared to AL. On the contrary, vomiting and nausea occurred more frequently after fixed-dose artesunate-amodiaquine formulation (ASAQf) than with AL (OR, 1.45;95% CI, 1.18 - 1.78). The risk of anaemia was higher with ASAQf and co-blistered artesunate-amodiaquine (ASAQc) than with AL. There was no significant difference in risk of anaemia (P > 0.05) between AL and different formulations of ASAQ. Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, this study demonstrated the superiority of DHPP, followed by AL, among currently recommended ACTs in terms of efficacy and tolerance. Network meta-analysis could be an alternative analytical tool but needs more data input from therapeutic efficacy studies. The determination of the best available therapy requires data triangulation and data science.

Which method of distal pancreatectomy is cost-effective among open,laparoscopic,or robotic surgery?

Background: The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical and economic impact of robotic distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and open distal pancreatectomy. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent distal pancreatic resection for benign and malignant diseases between January 2012 and December 2015 were prospectively included. Cost analysis was performed;all charges from patient admission to discharge were considered. Results: There were 21 robotic (RDP), 25 laparoscopic (LDP), and 43 open (ODP) procedures. Operative time was longer in the RDP group (RDP =345 minutes, LDP =306 min, ODP =251 min, P=0.01). Blood loss was higher in the ODP group (RDP =192 mL, LDP =356 mL, ODP =573 mL, P=0.0002). Spleen preservation was more frequent in the RDP group (RDP =66.6%, LDP =61.9%, ODP =9.3%, P=0.001). The rate of patients with Clavien-Dindo > grade III was higher in the ODP group (RDP =0%, LDP =12%, ODP =23%, P=0.01), especially for non-surgical complications, which were more frequent in the ODP group (RDP =9.5%, LDP =24%, ODP =41.8%, P=0.02). Length of hospital stay was increased in the ODP group (ODP =19 days, LDP =13 days, RDP =11 days, P=0.007). The total cost of the procedure, including the surgical procedure and postoperative course was higher in the ODP group (ODP =30,929 Euros, LDP=22,150 Euros, RDP =21,219 Euros, P=0.02). Conclusions: Cost-effective results of RDP seem to be similar to LDP with some better short-term outcomes.