OBJECTIVE: This prospective study was conducted to compare the clinical outcomes of a 6-row 3-D linear cutter with the standard 4-row linear cutter in patients who underwent elective gastrointestinal surgery anastomosis. METHOD: Patients who underwent elective open gastrointestinal surgery that included stapled anastomosis using a linear cutter (Proximate®, Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Cincinnati, OH) between January 2011 and May 2011 were included in the study. The patients were randomly assigned to two groups according to the linear cutter that was used in the surgery: the standard 4-row cutter (the S group) or the new 6-row cutter (the N group). The groups were compared based on the patient demographic data, the laboratory parameters, the preoperative diagnosis, the surgery performed, the operation time, intra-or postoperative complications, the time to oral tolerance and the length of the hospital stay. RESULTS: The S group included 11 male and nine female patients with a mean age of 65 ± 12 (35-84) years, while the N group included 13 male and eight female patients with a mean age of 62 ±11 (46-79) years (p =0.448, p = 0.443, respectively). Anastomotic line bleeding was observed in eight (40%) patients in the S group and in one (4.7%) patient in the N group (p = 0.006). Dehiscence of the anastomosis line was observed in two (10%) patients in the S group and none in the N group (p =0.131). Anastomotic leakage developed in three (15%) patients in the S group and in one (4.7%) patient in the N group (p = 0.269). The mean hospital stay was 12.65 ± 6.1 days in theS group and 9.52 ± 2.9 days in the N group (p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: The 6-row 3-D linear cutter is a safe and easily applied instrument that can be used to create anastomoses in gastrointestinal surgery. The new stapler provides some usage benefits and is also superior to the standard linear cutter with regard to anastomotic line bleeding.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective randomized clinical study was conducted to evaluate the safety and tolerability of early oral feeding after colorectal operations. METHODS: A total of 199 patients underwent colorectal surgery and were randomly assigned to early feeding (n = 99) or a regular diet (n = 100). Patients’ characteristics, diagnoses, surgical procedures, comorbidity, bowel movements, defecation, nasogastric tube reinsertion, time of tolerance of solid diet, complications, and length of hospitalization were assessed. RESULTS: The two groups were similar in terms of gender, age, diagnosis, surgical procedures, and comorbidity. In the early feeding group, 85.9% of patients tolerated the early feeding schedule. Bowel movements (1.7±0.89 vs. 3.27±1.3), defecation (3.4±0.77 vs. 4.38±1.18) and time of tolerance of solid diet (2.48±0.85 vs. 4.77±1.81) were significantly earlier in the early feeding group. There was no change between the groups in terms of nasogastric tube reinsertion, overall complication or anastomotic leakage. Hospitalization (5.55±2.35 vs. 9.0±6.5) was shorter in the early feeding group. CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicated that early oral feeding after elective colorectal surgery was not only well tolerated by patients but also affected the postoperative outcomes positively. Early postoperative feeding is safe and leads to the early recovery of gastrointestinal functions.

AIM: This prospective randomized clinical study was conducted to compare radioguided occult lesion localization (ROLL) with wire-guided localization to evaluate optimum localization techniques for non-palpable breast lesions. METHODS: A total of 108 patients who were undergoing an excisional biopsy for non-palpable breast lesions requiring pathologic diagnosis were randomly assigned to the ROLL group (n = 56) and wire-guided localization group (n = 52). In the study, patients' characteristics, radiological abnormalities, radiological technique of localization, localization time, operation time, weight of the excised specimen, clearance margins, pathological diagnosis and perioperative complications were assessed. RESULTS: There were no differences between the two groups in terms of age, radiological abnormalities and localization technique (p = non-significant for all). ROLL techniques resulted in 100% retrieval of the lesions; for the wire-guided localization technique, 98%. Both localization time and operation time were significantly reduced with the ROLL technique (p = significant for all). The weight of the specimen was significantly lower in the ROLL group than in the wire-guided localization group (p = significant). The overall complication rate and pathological diagnosis were similar for both groups (p = non-significant for all). Clear margins were achieved in 91% of ROLL patients and in 53% of wire-guided localization patients, and the difference was significant. CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicated that the ROLL technique is as effective as wire-guided localization for the excision of non-palpable breast lesions. In addition, ROLL improved the outcomes by reducing localization and operation time, preventing healthy tissue excision and achieving clearer margins.