No abstract

No abstract

Background: Diarrhea is one of the common gastrointestinal (GI) adverse events after solid organ transplantation. Diarrhea may be caused by infectious or non-infectious etiology. The infectious etiology of diarrhea varies according to the location and duration of diarrhea. Non-infectious etiologies include drugs, inflammatory bowel disease, neoplasia. The objective of this study was to evaluate the etiological profile of diarrhea in solid organ transplant recipients presenting to a tertiary care center in Southern India.Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of all solid organ transplantation recipients referred to the Department of Medical Gastroenterology for evaluation of diarrhea from April 2012 till May 2014. All patients had stool evaluated by wet mount examination, modified acid fast (AFB) stain, trichrome stain, culture, and Clostridium difficile toxin assay. EDTA plasma was collected for quantitative Cytomegalovirus (CMV) detection by real-time PCR. If the diarrhea was acute (<2 wk), and no etiological agent was identified, empirical antibiotic therapy was instituted and followed up. If persistent or chronic diarrhea (>2-4 wk), endoscopic evaluation (upper GI endoscopy and/or colonoscopy with biopsies), depending on the clinical type of diarrhea was done. If no specific etiological diagnosis was established after endoscopic evaluation, breath test for SIBO and celiac serology were done. If no specific etiology was identified after the above investigations, dose of immunosuppressive drugs was reduced. If diarrhea responded to dose reduction, it was considered to be drug related.Results: Fifty-eight episodes of diarrhea occurred in 55 solid organ transplant recipients during the study period. Renal transplant recipients constituted the majority (70%). Most (79%) of patients included in the study had their transplant > 6 mo ago.Infective diarrhea was the etiology in 46%, drug-related diarrhea in 29.3%. No specific etiology was identified in 22.4% of patients. Parasites accounted for 69% of all

Background: Numerous topical agents are used for chronic diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) care and healing. In most of the hospitals in India povidone iodine is used topically for DFU dressing, however few other agents are more efficacious; the present study was aimed to compare the effect of povidone iodine and normal saline dressing in healing of DFU.Methods: A total of 50 patients (25 patients in each arm of povidone Iodine and Saline dressing group) with complaints of chronic DFU attending surgery outpatient department of Rajarajeswari Medical College and Hospital were considered in this prospective comparative study from July 2017 to December 2018. Dressings were done on daily basis for a period of 6 weeks, and the results were compared on 2nd, 4th and 6th week, using reduction in surface area of chronic DFU as parameter of healing process.Results: The mean surface area of wound in povidone iodine group was: baseline- 12.2 sq.cm, 2nd week- 11.7 sq.cm, 4th week- 10.6 sq.cm, 6th week- 9.8 sq.cm; While in saline group was: baseline- 13.3 sq.cm, 2nd week- 11.6 sq.cm, 4th week- 10.8 sq.cm, 6th week- 9.6 sq.cm. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in surface area of wound is more in the saline dressing group compared with the povidone iodine dressing group and the results are statistically significant at a p<0.05.Conclusions: Saline dressing is more effective than povidone iodine dressing in achieving complete healing, reducing wound surface area, and increasing comfort in subjects with chronic DFU.

Obstruction of common bile duct due to a ‘Forgotten stent’ causing stone formation is a rare entity, which is usually associated with cholangitis. A much rarer presentation is our case with an ERCP stent forming a nidus for stone formation in the common bile duct without any evidence of cholangitis or bile duct obstruction.  A 66-year-old female patient with a previous history of laparoscopic cholecystectomy and common bile duct stenting done 2 years back presented with vague abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting without features of jaundice or cholangitis. She was diagnosed on imaging as a case of choledocholithiasis with two stents in the common bile duct. A failed ERCP to extract the stent and relieve obstruction necessitated open choledochotomy, stents removal, common bile duct clearance and choledochoduodenostomy. The rarity of this patient with an ERCP acting as a nidus for common bile duct stones without evidence of obstruction or cholangitis is something to be documented. Although rare, these complications must always be considered and considered a possibility due to which post-operative and post-endoscopic follow up, regular check-ups and timely removal of the stents is necessary to avoid unnecessary complications or a need for repeat procedures and surgery that results in greater morbidity.