Andrzej Budzyński

Introduction Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is increasingly recognized among metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates and has been associated with affective burden, impulsivity, and difficulties with treatment adherence. This study assessed the prevalence of ADHD diagnosed with a structured clinical interview and examined its associations with depressive symptoms, anxiety, and impulsivity in adults undergoing preoperative psychological evaluation for metabolic and bariatric surgery. Methods Seventy adults with obesity undergoing routine bariatric qualification were assessed for ADHD using the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults, DSM-5 version (DIVA-5), and completed the Beck Depression Inventory–II (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Barratt Impulsiveness Scale–11 (BIS-11). Group comparisons were conducted between participants with and without ADHD. Two multivariable linear regression models examined predictors of depressive symptom severity and anxiety severity, including age, sex, BMI, ADHD diagnosis, and impulsivity. Results ADHD was diagnosed in 18.6% of participants (13/70). Compared with participants without ADHD, those with ADHD reported significantly higher depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and impulsivity, and more frequently met criteria for depressive and anxiety disorders. In multivariable analyses, female sex, ADHD diagnosis, and impulsivity independently predicted depressive symptom severity, whereas female sex and ADHD diagnosis predicted anxiety severity. Conclusion ADHD was relatively common in this sample of metabolic and bariatric surgery candidates and was independently associated with greater depressive and anxiety symptom severity. Impulsivity provided additional explanatory value for depressive symptoms beyond ADHD diagnosis. These findings support targeted screening for ADHD symptoms and impulsivity during preoperative psychological evaluation to identify patients who may benefit from enhanced psychological support before metabolic and bariatric surgery.

Purpose The aim of this study was to establish whether laparoscopic RAMPS (L-RAMPS) is a safe procedure with better oncological outcomes compared to laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) with splenectomy among patients with distal pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Methods This is a retrospective study performed on consecutive patients who underwent L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy for resectable or borderline resectable PDAC of the body and tail. In this paper, we presented our technique of laparoscopic RAMPS and analyzed intraoperative and perioperative complications, oncological efficacy, and long-term survival. Results The study included 12 patients in the L-RAMPS group and 13 patients in the LDP with splenectomy. L-RAMPS was associated with significantly higher rates of R0 resection (91.7% vs. 69.2%, p = 0.027). There were no differences between the L-RAMPS and LDP with splenectomy groups in intraoperative blood loss (400 mL vs 400 mL, p = 0.783) and median operative time (250 min vs 220 min, p = 0.785). No differences were found in terms of perioperative complications, including the incidence of pancreatic fistula. Conclusion Laparoscopic RAMPS is a feasible and safe procedure. It provides higher radicality as compared with LDP with splenectomy, without increasing the risk of complications. Further studies are necessary to evaluate long-term outcomes.

Background: The need for safe and efficient dissemination of minimally invasive approach in liver surgery is among the current challenges for hepatobiliary surgeons. After the stage of innovators and pioneers, the following countries should adopt a laparoscopic approach. The aim of this study was to assess the national experience and trend in implementing laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in Poland. Materials and methods: A national registry of LLR performed in Poland was established in June 2020. All LLR cases performed before were included retrospectively, followed by prospectively collected new cases. Baseline characteristics, preoperative and intraoperative data, short-term results and long-term follow-up were recorded. Results: Since 2010 up to the end of 2022 there were 718 LLRs performed in Poland. The national rate of laparoscopic approach has gradually increased since 2017 (PPn=97) and 6.7% (n=48), respectively. 30-day reoperation, readmission and postoperative mortality rates were 3.6% (n=26), 2.8% (n=20), and 0.8% (n=6), respectively. While the R0 resection margin was assessed in 643 (89.6%) cases, the total textbook outcomes (TO) were achieved in 525 (74.5%) cases. Overcoming the learning curve of 60 LLRs, resulted in an increasing TO rate from 72.3 to 80.6% (P=0.024). Conclusions: It is the first national analysis of a laparoscopic approach in liver surgery in Poland. An increasing trend of minimizing invasiveness in liver resection has been observed. Responsible selection of cases in accordance with difficulty may provide results within global benchmark values and textbook outcomes already during the learning curve.

Introduction: Defunctioning ileostomy has been widely used in patients undergoing low anterior rectal resection to reduce the rate of postoperative leakage. It is still not clear whether interval between primary procedure and ileostomy reversal has an impact on treatment outcomes. Methods: In our prospective observational study we reviewed 164 consecutive cases of patients who underwent total mesorectal excision with primary anastomosis. Univariate and multivariate regression models were used to search for risk factors for prolonged length of stay and complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Receiver operating characteristic curves were utilized to set cut-off points for prolonged length of stay and perioperative morbidity. Results: In total, 132 patients were included in the statistical analysis. The median interval between primary procedure and defunctioning ileostomy reversal was 134 (range: 17–754) days, while median length of stay was 5 days (4–6 interquartile range (IQR)). Prolonged length of stay cut-off was established at 6 days. Regression models revealed that interval between primary surgery and stoma closure as well as complications after primary procedure are risk factors for complications after defunctioning ileostomy reversal. Prolonged length of stay has been found to be related primarily to interval between primary surgery and stoma closure. Conclusions: In our study interval between primary surgery and stoma closure along with complication occurrence after primary procedure are risk factors for perioperative morbidity and prolonged length of stay (LOS) after ileostomy reversal. The effort should be made to minimize the interval to ileostomy reversal. However, randomized studies are necessary to avoid the bias which appears in this observational study and confirm our findings.