• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 24.05.24

Search results


May 2013
M. Abu-Gazala, N. Shussman, S. Abu-Gazala, R. Elazary, M. Bala, S. Rozenberg, A. Klimov, A.I. Rivkind, D. Arbell, G. Almogy and A.I. Bloom
 Background: Renal artery injuries are rarely encountered in victims of blunt trauma. However, the rate of early diagnosis of such injuries is increasing due to increased awareness and the liberal use of contrast-enhanced CT. Sporadic case reports have shown the feasibility of endovascular management of blunt renal artery injury. However, no prospective trials or long-term follow-up studies have been reported.

Objectives: To present our experience with endovascular management of blunt renal artery injury, and review the literature.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 18 months at a level 1 trauma center. Search of our electronic database and trauma registry identified three patients with renal artery injury from blunt trauma who were successfully treated endovascularly. Data recorded included the mechanism of injury, time from injury and admission to revascularization, type of endovascular therapy, clinical and imaging outcome, and complications.

Results: Mean time from injury to endovascular revascularization was 193 minutes and mean time from admission to revascularization 154 minutes. Stent-assisted angioplasty was used in two cases, while angioplasty alone was performed in a 4 year old boy. A good immediate angiographic result was achieved in all patients. At a mean follow-up of 13 months the treated renal artery was patent in all patients on duplex ultrasound. The mean percentage renal perfusion of the treated kidney at last follow-up was 36% on DTPA renal scan. No early or late complications were encountered.

Conclusions: Endovascular management for blunt renal artery dissection is safe and feasible if an early diagnosis is made. This approach may be expected to replace surgical revascularization in most cases.

 

December 2009
O. Barak, R. Elazary, L. Appelbaum, A. Rivkind and G. Almogy

Background: Current treatment options for acute calculous cholecystitis include either early cholecystectomy, or conservative treatment consisting of intravenous antibiotics and an interval cholecystectomy several weeks later. Percutaneous drainage is reserved for patients in whom conservative therapy failed or as a salvage procedure for high risk patients.

Objective: To identify clinical and radiographic factors leading to failure of conservative treatment.

Methods: We prospectively collected data on consecutive patients admitted with the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Parameters were compared between patients who were successfully treated conservatively and those who required percutaneous cholecystostomy. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for failure of conservative treatment. 

Results: The study population comprised 103 patients with a median age of 60 who were treated for acute cholecystitis. Twenty-seven patients (26.2%) required PC[1]. On univariate analysis, age above 70 years, diabetes, elevated white blood cell count, tachycardia (> 100 beats/min) at admission, and a distended gallbladder (> 5 cm transverse diameter) were found to be significantly more common in the PC group (P < 0.001). WBC[2] was higher in the PC group throughout the initial 48 hours. On multivariate analysis, age above 70 (odds ratio 3.6), diabetes (OR[3] 9.4), tachycardia at admission (OR 5.6), and a distended gallbladder (OR 8.5) were predictors for cholecystostomy (P < 0.001). Age above 70 (OR 5.2) and WBC > 15,000 (OR 13.7) were predictors for failure of conservative treatment after 24 and 48 hours (P < 0.001). 

Conclusions: Age above 70, diabetes, and a distended gallbladder are predictors for failure of conservative treatment and such patients should be considered for early cholecystostomy. Persistently elevated WBC (> 15,000) suggests refractory disease and should play a central role in the clinical follow-up and decision-making process for elderly patients with acute cholecystitis.


 




[1] PC = percutaneous cholecystostomy



[2] WBC = white blood cells



[3] OR = odds ratio


July 2008
May 2008
A. Khalaileh, I. Matot, C. Schweiger, L. Appelbum, R. Elazary and A. Keidar

Background: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is currently considered the gold standard surgical option for the treatment of morbid obesity. Open RYGB[1] is associated with a high risk of complications. Laparoscopic RYGB has been shown to reduce perioperative morbidity and improve recovery.

Objectives: To review our experience with laparoscopic RYGB during a 19 month period.

Methods: The data were collected prospectively. The study group comprised all patients who underwent laparoscopic RYGB for treatment of morbid obesity as their primary operation between February 2006 and July 2007. The reported outcome included surgical results, weight loss, and improved status of co-morbidities, with follow-up of up to 19 months.

Results: The mean age of the 50 patients was 36.7 years. Mean body mass index was 44.7 kg/m2 (range 35–76 kg/m2); mean duration of surgery was 171 minutes. There was no conversion to open surgery. The mean length of stay was 4 days (range 2–7 days). Five patients (10%) developed a complication, but none of them required early reoperation and there were no deaths. Mean follow-up was 7 months (range 40 days–19 months). The excess body weight loss was 55% and 61% at 6 and 12 months respectively. Diabetes resolved completely or significantly improved in all five patients with this condition, as did hypertension in eight patients out of nine.

Conclusions: Laparoscopic RYGB is feasible and safe. The results in terms of weight loss and correction of co-morbidities are comparable to other previously published studies. However, only surgeons with experience in advanced laparoscopic as well as bariatric surgery should attempt this procedure.






[1] RYGB = Roux-en-Y gastric bypass


September 2006
R. Elazary, M. Bala, G. Almogy, A. Khalaileh, D. Kisselgoff, M. Rav-Acha, A.I. Rivkind and Y Mintz
August 2005
R. Elazary, A. Maly, A. Khalaileh, C. Rubinstein, K. Olstain-Pops, G. Almogy, A.I. Rivkind and Y. Mintz
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel