Home About us Contact | |||
Gastrointestinal Surgeons (gastrointestinal + surgeon)
Kinds of Gastrointestinal Surgeons Selected AbstractsThe effect of preoperative weight loss and body mass index on postoperative outcome in patients with esophagogastric carcinomaDISEASES OF THE ESOPHAGUS, Issue 7 2009J. Skipworth SUMMARY Studies have shown that weight loss is associated with adverse outcomes in all treatment modalities for esophagogastric carcinoma. Because of the increased prevalence of obesity and the effectiveness of perioperative nutrition, a number of patients are now obese or have normal body mass index (BMI) at the time of treatment. We investigated the relationship between weight loss, BMI, and outcome of surgery for patients with esophagogastric carcinoma. Data were collected over a 38-month period for all patients diagnosed with operable esophagogastric cancer at two UK centers. All patients underwent resection by a single Consultant Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeon and the use of perioperative jejunal feeding was universal. Ninety-three patients (57 male) underwent esophagogastric resection; 48 had no preoperative weight loss (34 with a BMI > 25 and 14 with a BMI < 25). Forty-five patients had preoperative weight loss (20 with BMI > 25 and 25 with BMI < 25). There was no significant difference in complication rates, median hospital stay, or mortality between the four groups. A significantly higher number of patients displaying preoperative weight loss were found to have stage III disease, but difference in survival of up to 3 years did not reach statistical significance on multivariate analysis. Preoperative weight loss and low BMI did not significantly influence the complication rate, perioperative mortality rate, length of hospital stay, or short-term prognosis. We conclude that preoperative weight loss can not be reliably used as an independent predictor of poor outcome in patients undergoing surgery for esophagogastric carcinoma. However, patients with preoperative weight loss and low BMI are more likely to have advanced disease. [source] The Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and IrelandBRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY (NOW INCLUDES EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY), Issue S5 2010Article first published online: 27 SEP 2010 The Annual Scientific Meeting of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and Ireland takes place this year in Oxford on the 9th and 10th of September. Copyright © 2010 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] The Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and IrelandBRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY (NOW INCLUDES EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY), Issue S6 2009Article first published online: 15 OCT 200 The Annual Scientific Meeting of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and Ireland takes place this year in Nottingham on the 3rd and 4th of September. To view the abstracts from this meeting, please click the pdf link on this page. Copyright © 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] The Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and IrelandBRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY (NOW INCLUDES EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY), Issue S7 2008Article first published online: 27 AUG 200 The Annual Scientific Meeting of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and Ireland was held in Liverpool in 25th and 26th September 2008, under the presidency of Mr Myrddin Rees. To view all abstracts and posters from this meeting, please click the pdf link on this page. Copyright © 2008 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] The Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and IrelandBRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY (NOW INCLUDES EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY), Issue S5 2007Article first published online: 30 AUG 200 The 2007 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons for Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS) was held in Cardiff on the 27th and 28th September 2007, under the presidency of Mr Myrddin Rees. To view all abstracts from this meeting, please click the pdf link on this page. Copyright © 2007 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source] Preoperative smoking cessation: a questionnaire studyINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 12 2007D. Owen Summary Background:, Preoperative smoking cessation has been shown to improve postoperative outcomes. Methods:, A total of 120 anonymous questionnaires were distributed to non-vascular surgeons practising in four centres in the UK asking about their smoking cessation advice practices, and whether they appreciated both the benefits of preoperative smoking cessation, and the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions. Results:, Eighty-three questionnaires were returned (response rate 69%). Twenty-three gastrointestinal surgeons, 11 orthopaedic surgeons, 9 breast surgeons, 12 plastic surgeons, 13 neurosurgeons and 15 urologists took part in this study. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents had not referred any elective patients to smoking cessation services in the previous month. Most non-vascular surgeons underestimated both the benefits of preoperative smoking cessation on outcome, and the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions. Conclusions:, This survey demonstrates that non-vascular surgeons underestimate the fact that preoperative smoking cessation can improve postoperative outcome, and that smoking cessation interventions are successful in helping patients to quit smoking. They largely do not refer patients to smoking cessation services. In order for patients to benefit postoperatively from this intervention it would be necessary to educate surgeons about the scale of the benefit, and the efficacy of smoking cessation interventions or to set up systematic frameworks to offer smoking cessation advice to preoperative patients who smoke. [source] Surgical training in gastrointestinal procedures within a UK gynaecological oncology subspecialty programmeBJOG : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, Issue 1 2010R Naik Objective, An analysis of surgical experience in gastrointestinal procedures within a UK-based gynaecological oncology centre to which subspecialty fellows within the subject are exposed. Design, Retrospective study. Setting, Northern Gynaecological Oncology Centre, Gateshead, UK. Population, All women undergoing bowel surgery over a six-year period, 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2005. Methods, Cases were analysed by specialty and grade of surgeon performing the procedure. Main outcome measure, Proportion of cases to which subspecialty fellows were exposed. Results, Two hundred and sixty-two women (11.5%) underwent bowel surgery out of 2280 women undergoing major surgery for gynaecological cancer. This included ovarian/primary peritoneal cancer in 186 women (71%). Of these 262 cases, 238 operations (91%) were performed by a gynaecological oncologist, 20 (7.5%) were performed jointly with the gastrointestinal surgeons and four (1.5%) were performed solely by the gastrointestinal surgeons. A gynaecological oncology subspecialty fellow performed 21 (8%) and assisted in an additional 204 operations (78%). Perioperative morbidity and mortality statistics in addition to overall survival outcomes were comparable to the published literature. Conclusions, A significant proportion of major surgical operations performed within a gynaecological oncology centre require gastrointestinal procedures. The majority of these procedures can be performed by gynaecological oncologists with an acceptable perioperative morbidity and mortality rate. Subspecialty training has the potential to allow trainees significant exposure to these procedures. An accredited post-Fellowship Training Programme can provide the opportunity for hands-on experience to allow gynaecological oncologists the confidence and credibility to perform these procedures independently. [source] Current practice of emergency vagotomy and Helicobacter pylori eradication for complicated peptic ulcer in the United KingdomBRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY (NOW INCLUDES EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY), Issue 1 2003A. D. Gilliam Background The aim was to assess the current opinion of surgeons, by subspecialty, towards vagotomy and the practice of Helicobacter pylori testing, treatment and follow-up, in patients with bleeding or perforated duodenal ulcer. Methods A postal questionnaire was sent to 1073 Fellows of the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland in 2001. Results Some 697 valid questionnaires were analysed (65·0 per cent). Most surgeons did not perform vagotomy for perforated or bleeding duodenal ulcer. There was no statistical difference between the responses of upper gastrointestinal surgeons and those of other specialists for perforated (P = 0·35) and bleeding (P = 0·45) ulcers. Respondents were more likely to perform a vagotomy for bleeding than for a perforated ulcer (P < 0·001). Although more than 80 per cent of surgeons prescribed H. pylori eradication treatment after operation, fewer than 60 per cent routinely tested patients for H. pylori eradication. Upper gastrointestinal surgeons were more likely to prescribe H. pylori treatment and test for eradication than other specialists (P < 0·01). Conclusion Most surgeons in the UK no longer perform vagotomy for duodenal ulcer complications. Copyright © 2002 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd [source] |