Study Design: Prospective controlled comparative analysis. Objective: To determine whether a colostomy changes quality of life in patients with a spinal cord injury. Method: A previously validated questionnaire designed to assess quality of life in spinal injured patients (Burwood Questionnaire) was sent to 26 spinal cord injured patients with colostomies and 26 spinal cord injured patients without colostomy. The two groups were matched for level of injury, completeness of injury, length of time since injury, age (+5 years) and gender. Results: There was 100% completion of the questionnaire. There was no signi®cant di erence (P40.05) in the two groups of patients in regard to their general well being, emotional, social, or work functioning. Conclusions: Patients with colostomy following spinal injury are no worse o in regard to quality of life, than those without. The inference is that perhaps a colostomy should be considered earlier in patients with major bowel dysfunction following spinal cord injury.

Study design: Case controlled study. Objective: To compare nutritional status and immune response in a group of spinal cord injured (SCI) patients with age and gender matched non SCI control subjects. Method: Thirty past patients of the Burwood Hospital Spinal Injuries Unit living locally were enrolled in the study. Age and gender matched non SCI control subjects were selected volunteers from hospital sta . Nutritional status was assessed by generating a Nutritional Risk Score (NRS, Appendix 1) and drawing blood for full blood count, iron studies, red blood cell folate, vitamin B12, ferritin, magnesium, and zinc. Immune status was assessed by vaccination response index (VRI) to Pneumovax 23 vaccine. Results: Full blood count, iron studies, and testing for red blood cell folate, albumin, prealbumin, vitamin B12, ferritin, magnesium and zinc were normal range for both groups. The SCI group had signi®cantly di erent median values than controls (P50.01) for haemoglobin concentration, white blood cell count, albumin, prealbumin, serum iron and % saturation. Body Mass Index (weight kg/(height cm 2 ) was 22.2 (range 15 ± 30) for the SCI group, signi®cantly less than the paired control group index of 26 (range 20 ± 32, P=0.0004). Median NRS for SCI patients was 2 (range 0 ± 6), compared to 0 (range 2 ± 4) for paired controls (P50.0001). Scores ranged from 0 to 2 for each of the ®ve NRS components for the SCI patients and 0 to 3 for the control group. There was no signi®cant di erence in the preand post-vaccination ratio for IgG, IgA, and IgM response to Pneumovax 23 vaccine. Conclusion: We have not identi®ed any nutritional or immune status abnormality in SCI patients, however the SCI patients have a lower value for certain nutritional parameters and BMI. SCI patients however are at only slight risk of nutritional problems given their NRS and their lower normal values for certain nutritional factors.

There is broad agreement about the presenting symptoms and the investigations required to confirm (or exclude) the diagnosis of iliac endofibrosis. There was consensus on the surgical approach to repair. Disagreement existed about the specific diagnostic criteria that should be applied during non-invasive testing and about post-operative care and resumption of exercise.

This multicenter study suggests that TEVAR is a durable option for treatment of traumatic thoracic aortic injury. Although, stent graft complications were uncommon, but when it occurred, it leads to re-intervention. Further radiological follow-up is required particularly in young patient to document late aortic/stent complications.

A nurse-run clinic that assesses patients with incidentally discovered small AAAs for inclusion in AAA surveillance is a feasible alternative to assessment of these patients in a consultant-run clinic.