Purpose: To compare the results of laser hemorrhoidoplasty (LHP), excisional hemorrhoidectomy (EH), and sutured mucopexy (MP). Methods: A randomized, parallel-group, double-blinded, single-center prospective study. Patients: Symptomatic 2nd- or 3rd-degree hemorrhoids patients. Interventions: Computer randomization sequence, patient blinding, operating surgeon blinding, and surgeon-evaluator blinding. LHP was performed using a 1470 nm diode laser. Up to 250 J of energy delivered per 1 hemorrhoid. The procedure was performed circumferentially. MP ligations were placed in the area of visible hemorrhoidal tissue. Standard EH was performed up to the level of the hemorrhoidal pedicle. Follow-up at 1 and 6 weeks and 1 year. Outcome measures: Recurrence of symptoms requiring treatment, intensity, and duration of pain after the operation, patients’ quality of life, fecal incontinence, and patients’ evaluation of treatment. Results: A total of 121 patients. Groups were even preoperatively. LHP took 15 min (SD 5.6), MP took 16 min (SD 5.58), and EH took 29 min (SD 10.3). Recurrence requiring treatment rate was 0% after EH, 10% after LHP, and 22% after MP, p = 0.004. LHP and MP were less painful than EH, p < 0.001. Patients after LHP returned to regular activity after 15 days, after MP after 22 days, and after EH after 30 days, p < 0.001. SF-36 scores were better after EH. Symptoms of fecal incontinence improved in all the groups. Patients evaluate LHP better than EH and MP. Limitations: Single-center study. Conclusions: Laser hemorrhoidoplasty is a safe, minimally invasive option for hemorrhoids, more effective than MP and less effective than EH. Patients evaluate this technique better than the other two.

Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Heterotopic pancreas is defined as pancreatic tissue without a real anatomical or vascular connection to the pancreas. It can be found in the stomach, duodenum, jejunum, ileum, Meckel’s diverticulum, colon gall bladder, umbilicus, fallopian tube, mediastinum, spleen and liver. Complications of heterotopic pancreas are inflammation, bleeding, obstruction, malignant transformation, carcinoid syndrome, jejunojejunal intussusception and ileus, but it is usually asymptomatic and diagnosed only during examinations for other diseases. An 81-year-old Lithuanian woman was diagnosed with caecal cancer and had undergone elective surgery. A right hemicolectomy was performed and a Meckel’s diverticulum was observed and excised. Histological results showed a poorly differentiated G3 adenocarcinoma of her large intestine and heterotopic pancreas tissue in the Meckel’s diverticulum and mesenteric adipose tissue. Asymptomatic heterotopic pancreas is rarely diagnosed, and usually found incidentally during surgical or diagnostic interventions. Although it has no symptoms, heterotopic pancreas found during surgical procedures should be excised.

Retrorectal lipoma, as well as other retrorectal tumours, is a relatively rare disorder. Retrorectal tumours accounted for 1 in 40,000 hospital admissions. We present a case of retrorectal lipoma, 15 cmx10 cmx8 cm in size, treated by the laparoscopic approach. The preoperative magnetic resonance imaging visualised a mass, 12 cmx6.7 cmx8.6 cm in diameter, in the retrorectal space, spreading toward the left obturator foramen. Surgery was indicated due to exclude malignant process certainly, because it is difficult to differentiate lipoma from low-grade liposarcoma on non invasive imaging. Laparoscopic extirpation of the tumour was performed. The overall operative time was 80 min. The diagnosis of lipoma was established on histological examination. The patient was discharged from hospital on the 2nd day after the surgery. We have found this minimally invasive operation to be an effective and well-tolerated treatment option, determined by the experience of the surgeon.