PubMed · 16268205
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Joseph H Friedman. 2005. Every silver lining has a cloud.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16268205/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: As with new laparoscopic techniques, the ability to convince surgeons and gastroenterologists to embrace endolumenal techniques and the additional training required to perform the new procedures will correlate with how rapidly endolumenal therapies are adopted. The authors measured their ability to change attitudes among surgeons, who may or may not perform endoscopy as a part of their practice, toward endolumenal therapies. METHODS: As part of the endoluminal therapy postgraduate course presented at the annual Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) meeting in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 2005, experts presented current literature and data on new endolumenal techniques. The participants, primarily of surgeons, were polled electronically about a number of case scenarios before and after their presentation. Each scenario was relevant to the topic presented and chosen to reflect potentially controversial disease processes with traditional or endolumenal treatment options. The responses were collected in real time and displayed to course participants. RESULTS: A panel of 10 experts presented data on a range of endolumenal therapies including endolumenal treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), endoscopic stenting, endoscopic treatments in bariatric surgery, intraoperative endoscopy, endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR), transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM), mucosal ablation for Barrett's esophagus, intralumenal resection, translumenal endoscopic surgery, and how to educate surgeons in new endolumenal techniques. Demographic data showed that 83.6% of the participants performed endoscopy as part of their practice. A comparison with traditional surgical options showed a statistically significant positive attitude change (p < 0.05) toward adoption of most endolumenal techniques after expert presentation. Only EMR and TEM did not show a statistically significant change in the participants' willingness to adopt these techniques. There was no significant change in the attitudes of how best to train surgeons. After presentation of the training options, 76% of the respondents believed that these techniques should be taught in residency. CONCLUSIONS: The education of surgeons in new endolumenal therapeutic techniques can have a significant impact in terms of changing practice attitudes and may accelerate adoption of new endoscopic techniques.
OBJECTIVE: The study assessed mid-term outcome of emergency endovascular repair for acute infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms, with special attention to secondary interventions. METHODS: Between May 1998 and August 2005, 56 patients underwent emergent endovascular repair for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 34) or an acute nonruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (n = 22). During the same period, 322 consecutive patients underwent elective endovascular aneurysm repair and were used as control group. Five types of stent grafts were used: Vanguard, Talent, Excluder, Zenith, and Quantum. Follow-up included abdominal radiograph, duplex ultrasound scanning, and computed tomographic angiography. Outcome measures included all-cause and aneurysm-related mortality, complications, and secondary interventions. RESULTS: Mortality at 30 days was 18%, 5%, and 1% in the ruptured, acute nonruptured, and elective aneurysm groups, respectively. Overall mean follow-up was 38 +/- 26 months. In the ruptured aneurysm group, survival was 67.8% +/- 8.6% at 1 year and 62.1% +/- 9.5% at 2 and 3 years. Seven secondary interventions (4 early and 3 late) were required in five patients (15%), with a cumulative risk of 9.2% +/- 5.1% at 1 year and 16.2% +/- 8.2% at 2 and 3 years. In the acute nonruptured aneurysm group, survival was 90.9% +/- 6.1% at 1 year, 84.8% +/- 8.2% at 2 years, and 76.4% +/- 10.9% at 3 years. Four secondary interventions (1 early and 3 late) were required in four patients (18%), with a cumulative risk of 9.6% +/- 6.5% at 1 and 2 years and 20.9% +/- 12.0% at 3 years. In the elective aneurysm (control) group, survival was 95.2% +/- 1.2% at 1 year, 89.9% +/- 1.8% at 2 years, and 86.2% +/- 2.1% at 3 years. A total of 51 secondary interventions (4 early, 47 late) were required in 38 patients (12%), with a cumulative risk of 4.2% +/- 1.1% at 1 year, 7.6% +/- 1.6% at 2 years, and 12.9% +/- 2.2% at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: To our surprise, emergency endovascular aneurysm repair did not present with higher secondary intervention rate at mid-term follow-up.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.