Robotic-assisted heller myotomy versus laparoscopic heller myotomy for the treatment of esophageal achalasia: multicenter study

Laparoscopic Heller myotomy (LHM) has become the standard treatment option for achalasia. The incidence of esophageal perforation reported is about 5%–10%. Robotically assisted Heller myotomy (RAHM) is emerging as a safe alternative to LHM. Data comparing the two approaches are scant. The aim of this study was to compare RAHM with LHM in terms of efficacy and safety for treatment of achalasia. A total of 121 patients underwent surgical treatment of achalasia at three institutions. A retrospective review of prospectively collected perioperative data was performed. Patients were divided into two groups: group A (RAHM), 59 patients, and group B (LHM), 62 patients. All the operations were completed using minimally invasive techniques. There were 63 women and 58 men, with a mean age of 45 ±19 years (14–82 years). Fifty-one percent of patients in group A and 95% of patients in group B reported weight loss. Duration of symptoms was equal for both groups. Dysphagia was the main complaint in both groups (P = NS). There was no difference in preoperative endoscopic treatment in both groups (44% versus 27%, P = NS). Operative time was significantly shorter for LHM in the first half of the experience (141 ± 49 versus 122 ± 44 minutes, P < .05). However, in the last 30 cases there was no difference in operative time between the groups (P = NS). Intraoperative complications (esophageal perforation) were more frequent in group B (16% versus 0%). The incidence of postoperative heartburn did not differ by group. There were no deaths. At 18 and 22 months, 92% and 90% of patients had relief of their dysphagia. This study suggests that RAHM is safer than LHM, because it decreases the incidence of esophageal perforation to 0%, even in patients who had previous treatment. At short-term follow-up, relief of dysphagia was equally achieved in both groups. Presented at the Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting of The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Chicago, Illinois, May 14–18, 2005 (oral presentation). This study was supported in part by a grant provided by Intuitive Surgical, Inc. and Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc.     

Antiemetic neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant and ifosfamide-induced encephalopathy.

We report the occurrence of an acute encephalopathy followingifosfamide infusion, that we believe directly triggered by aprepitant(Emend^TM, Merck & Co., Inc.). Aprepitant, the first neurokinin-1receptor antagonist, is a new antiemetic indicated for highlyand moderately emetogenic chemotherapy, in association with     

The quinolone,flumequine, has no effect on theophylline pharmacokinetics

The kinetics of a single i. v. dose of theophylline given either alone or with flumequine was studied in eight healthy volunteers. No statistically significant differences were observed in the pharmacokinetic parameters of theophylline (volume of distribution, elimination half-life, AUC, plasma clearance) following the two treatments.Pretreatment for 5 days with oral flumequine (400 mg, three times daily) had no significant effect on the disposition of a single i. v. dose of theophylline in healthy volunteers.     

Laboratory screening method for selection of healthy volunteers

The aim of laboratory screening in Phase I is to exclude subjects with subclinical illness, who might be at increased risk in the study, and who might also adversely influence interpretation of the results. A new method for laboratory screening, based on Bayesian probability theory, is proposed, which consists of: 1. Drawing up a list of diseases to be excluded. 2. Defining for each disease, the maximum acceptable risk that an included subject could be affected by it. 3. Identifying one test for each disease. 4. Using a contingency table to calculate the specificity of the test and integrating the estimated prevalence of the disease from epidemiological data. 5. Applying the percentage obtained by the calculation of specificity to the previously determined distribution of values in the volunteer population to identify the threshold value for inclusion. Use of this deductive method in screening volunteers for Phase I trials affords increased security of selection, while reducing the number of non-pertinent exclusions because of laboratory findings.