The laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches to internal drainage of PPs are safe. Although laparoscopic drainage appears to carry a higher success rate and lower rates of morbidity and recurrence, the heterogeneity of the published reports and the varied follow-up periods limit direct comparisons. Data from longer follow-up periods and randomized comparative trials are needed.
INTRODUCTION Some clinicians have argued that 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer patients can go 'straight-to-test' to facilitate time to diagnosis and treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the currently used referral letters are reliable enough to allow that pathway. PATIENTS AND METHODS General practitioner (GP) letters referring patients under the Two Week-Wait Rule for suspected colorectal cancer were prospectively reviewed over a 6-month period. Three examining consultants were asked to outline the tests they would perform having only read the letter, and then again after a clinical consultation with the patient. The outcome of these tests was tracked. RESULTS A total of 217 referral letters of patients referred under Two Week Wait Rule for suspected colorectal cancer were studied. Having just read the referral letter, the most frequently requested test was colonoscopy (148), then CT scan (48), barium enema (44), followed by gastroscopy (23) and flexible sigmoidoscopy in 15 patients (some patients would have had more than one test requested). After consultation with the patients, tests requested as guided by the GP letter were changed in 67 patients (31%), where 142 colonoscopies, 61 CT scans, 37 barium enemas, 23 flexible sigmoidoscopies and 19 gastroscopies were organised. The referral indication which had tests changed most often was definite palpable rectal mass (67%), while patients referred with definite palpable right-sided abdominal mass had their tests least often changed (9%). A total of 22 patients were found to have colorectal cancers (10%) and 30 patients were diagnosed with polyps (14%). Out of 142 colonoscopies performed, 19 (13%) showed some pathology beyond the sigmoid colon and of the 23 patients who had flexible sigmoidoscopy initially, only three went on to have colonoscopy subsequently. During the 6-month period of the study, only five breaches of the waiting time targets were recorded (1 to the 31-day target and 4 to the 62-day target). CONCLUSIONS A significant number of patients would have had tests changed after a clinical consultation. However, only a small number required further investigations having had a consultation prior to their initial investigations. We conclude that 2-week wait suspected colorectal cancer patients should be seen in the clinic first and should not proceed 'straight-to-test'.
The laparoscopic approach to biliary bypass surgery is safe and has a high initial success rate, low reintervention rate, and low morbidity and mortality rates. Longer follow-up data and comparative studies with open surgery and endoscopic stenting are needed.
Background: appendiceal tumours are rare, they may be encountered unexpectedly in any acute or elective abdominal operation, many of these tumours are not appreciated intraoperatively and are diagnosed only during formal histopathological analysis of an appendicectomy specimen. Herein we present a case of appendiceal adenocarcinoma presenting as left-sided large bowel obstruction, we also review the literature of unusual presentations of appendiceal tumours.
The case history is presented of a patient who developed pharyngeal perforation following the use of a Taser electroshock gun. This complication has not previously been reported.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.