The Korean versions click here of the European Organization for Research and Treatment (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and a gastric cancer-specific module, the EORTC QLQ-STO22, were used to assess the quality of life of 80 patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy

or open distal subtotal gastrectomy for gastric cancer. The postoperative period ranged between 6 months and 5 years.

The global health status/quality of life scores of Groups A and B were 56.0 +/- A 19.0 and 57.4 +/- A 18.2, respectively (p = 0.729). Group A experienced worse quality of life in role functioning (p = 0.026), cognitive functioning (p = 0.034), fatigue (p = 0.039), eating restrictions MEK inhibitor (p = 0.009), and anxiety (p = 0.033). Group A showed a trend

to experience worse quality of life in physical functioning, emotional functioning, social functioning, insomnia, and body image, albeit without statistical significance.

After the early postoperative period and before achieving long-term survival, patients who underwent laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy appeared to experience lower quality of life compared to patients who underwent open distal subtotal gastrectomy. This finding may be associated with the patients’ erroneously high expectations of laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy.”
“Background: Decompressive craniectomy (DC) is helpful in lowering the intracranial pressure in check details patients with severe head injuries. However, it is still unclear which surgical approach (DC or craniotomy) is the optimal treatment strategy for severely head-injured patients with acute subdural hematoma (SDH). To clarify this point, we compared the outcomes and complications of the patients with acute SDH and low Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score treated with craniotomy or DC.

Methods: We analyzed 102 patients with acute SDH and GCS scores of 4 to 8. Of them, 42 patients (41.2%) were treated with craniotomy

and 60 (58.8%) treated with DC for evacuation of hematoma. The demographic and clinical data were analyzed including patient age, sex, injury mechanism, GCS score, pupil size and light reflex, time interval from injury to operation, types of surgical procedures, intracranial findings in pre- and postoperative computed tomography scan, intracranial pressure, complications, requirement of permanent cerebrospinal fluid diversion, and Glasgow Outcome Scale score after at least 1 year of follow-up.

Results: The craniotomy and DC groups showed no difference in the demographic and clinical data. There was no difference in the outcomes and complication rates between these two groups except that the DC group had higher mortality than the craniotomy group (23.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.04).

Conclusion: Both craniotomy and DC were feasible treatment strategies for acute SDH.