Clinical Medicine & Research最新文献

Introduction: Knee arthroplasty is exposed to demographic changes as patients age. An analysis of risk factors for surgical treatment decisions in patients over 80 years old is crucial. This study compared perioperative complications between groups of patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty, under 60 years old and over 80 years old.Materials and Methods: For this retrospective study, data from 400 patients with primary cemented bi- and unicondylar total knee endoprosthesis during inpatient stay from 2017 to 2018 were analyzed. Patients aged 61-79 years (257) were excluded. An analysis of the remaining 143 patients was performed. The incidence of surgery-related and systemic complications (eg, urinary tract infections, electrolyte imbalances, and cases of pneumonia), the blood supply and C-reactive protein (CRP) as well as hemoglobin progression were compared across both age groups. Furthermore, a correlation between prevalent diseases and systemic complications were investigated. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS (Armonk, US).Results: Data analyses showed a significant difference in the occurrence of systemic complications and blood transfusion between the age groups (P = 0.001, phi = 0.44; phi= 0.55, P = 0.001). Surgical complications did not differ significantly between the age groups. Age-typical pre-existing conditions, especially arterial hypertension (P = 0.003), showed a significant association with the occurrence of systemic complications. In addition, high postoperative CRP values in elderly patients revealed an association to systemic complications (P = 0.008).Discussion and Conclusion: The study shows that primary cemented knee arthroplasty is a safe procedure without an increased incidence of surgical complications, even in elderly patients. The increased incidence of internal complications in octogenarians, in turn, should receive more attention in the perioperative course. The interdisciplinary preoperative optimization of pre-existing conditions and drug therapy, as well as close interdisciplinary assessments of elderly patients, should be ensured.

Objective: To examine disparities between primary care provider (PCP) and gastroenterologist diagnosis and management of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS).Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study.Setting: A 547-bed quaternary-care hospital within the Loyola University Healthcare System.Participants: 1000 patients aged 18-65 with an ICD-10 diagnosis of IBSMethods: We randomly selected 1000 patients aged 18 to 65 years within the Loyola University Healthcare System's electronic medical record with an ICD-10 diagnosis of IBS. Physician notes and diagnostic results were reviewed for documentation of symptoms fulfilling Rome IV criteria and resolution of symptoms. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of primary diagnoses assigned by PCPs and gastroenterologists were assessed along with number of diagnostic tests ordered.Results: The mean age (SD) was 45 (12) years, and 76.9% were female. Sensitivity of an IBS diagnosis by a PCP was 77.6% (95% CI 73.3-81.9), compared with 60.1% (95% CI 54.7-65.6) for a gastroenterologist. Specificity of an IBS diagnosis by a PCP was 27.5% (95% CI 23.5-31.5), compared with 71.1% (95% CI 64.6-77.5) for a gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS. A gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS carried a high PPV (77.3%, 95% CI 72.0-82.6) compared with 44.6% (95% CI 40.7-48.5) for a PCP. Of 180 patients with outcome data, 69.4% had resolution of symptoms at follow-up.Conclusion: The sensitivity of gastroenterologist diagnosis of IBS closely matches the sensitivity of Rome IV criteria in validation studies. The high specificity and PPV of gastroenterologists suggest more cautious diagnosis by gastroenterologists, with PCPs more likely to assign a diagnosis of IBS incorrectly or without sufficient documentation of symptoms fulfilling Rome IV criteria. Reported resolution rates suggest primary care management of IBS is appropriate, but PCPs may benefit from gastroenterologist consultation and diagnostic guidelines for greater specificity in diagnosing IBS.

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) combined with gastric coronary vein embolization (GCVE) for cirrhotic portal hypertensive variceal bleeding and compare outcomes of first-line with second-line treatment, coil with glue, and single-covered with double stents.Methods: Fifteen patients received TIPS plus GCVE as the first-line treatment for secondary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding, and 45 received it as second-line treatment. Preoperative and postoperative quantitative variables were compared using a paired t test. The incidence of survival rate, re-bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, and shunt dysfunction were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results: The portal venous pressure was significantly decreased from 39.0 ± 5.0 mm Hg to 22.5 ± 4.4 mm Hg (P≤0.001) after TIPS treatment. After 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months re-bleeding rates were 1.6%, 3.3%, 6.6%, 13.3%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Shunt dysfunction rates were 5%, 0%, 10%, 16.6%, 1.6%, and 5%, respectively. Hepatic encephalopathy rates were 3.3%, 1.6%, 3.3%, 6.6%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. And survival rates were 100%, 100%, 100%, 96.6%, 93.3%, and 88.3% respectively. In comparative analysis, statistically significant differences were seen in re-bleeding between the first-line and second-line treatment groups (26.6% vs 24.4%, log-rank P=0.012), and survival rates between single-covered and double stent (3.7% vs 16.1%, log-rang (P=0.043).Conclusion: The results suggest that TIPS combined with GCVE is effective and safer in the treatment of cirrhotic portal hypertensive variceal bleeding. The use of TIP plus GCVE as first-line treatment, may be preferable for high-risk re-bleeding, and more than 25 mm Hg portal venous pressure with repeated variceal bleeding. However, the sample size was small. Therefore, large, randomized, controlled, multidisciplinary center studies are needed for further evaluation.

Epiploic appendagitis is a rare cause of acute lower abdominal pain. Epiploic appendices are fat-filled serosal outpouchings of the cecum and sigmoid colon. Primary epiploic appendagitis (PEA) is characterized by epiploic inflammation caused by torsion of the appendage leading to ischemia or thrombosis of the appendage draining vein. Secondary epiploic appendagitis occurs in association with other inflammatory conditions of the abdomen or pelvis, most commonly diverticulitis. PEA is an important clinical mimicker of more severe causes of acute abdominal pain, such as diverticulitis, appendicitis, or gynaecological causes. The ease of access to computed tomography (CT), the diagnostic test of choice, has resulted in increased recognition of PEA. The classic CT findings of PEA are an ovoid mass measuring between 1.5 and 3.5 cm surrounded by a hyperattenuating/hyperdense ring with a centrally located hyperdense area. It is important to diagnose PEA as it is self-limiting and the correct diagnosis can prevent unnecessary hospital admission, antibiotic use, or even surgical intervention. We present a case of a 65-year-old male with a history of diverticulitis, presenting with left lower quadrant abdominal pain who was diagnosed with PEA based on CT and successfully managed with conservative treatment.

Introduction: Epidemiological outcomes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) remain sparse. This study aims to compare preoperative characteristics, surgical outcomes, and oncological outcomes of RCC patients at a urology unit in Singapore.Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of 137 RCC patients in the National University Hospital of Singapore who had undergone partial nephrectomy between 2009 and 2020 was conducted. χ² tests (Chi-Square Test, Fisher's Exact Test) and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for comparing categorical and continuous variables respectively. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used for survival analysis.Results: In total, 137 patients were identified (Chinese [n=82], Malay [n=19], Indian [n=15], Others [n=21]). Indian patients were diagnosed at an earlier age (52.13±10.52 years, P=0.018). A larger percentage of Malay patients (78.9%, P<0.001) were operated on before 2016, prior to the center's adoption of the robotic surgical technique. More Malay and Indian patients underwent laparoscopic surgery (36.8% and 46.7%, P=0.008), experiencing higher rates of intra-operative conversions compared to the Chinese and other ethnicities (5.3% and 13.3% vs. 0%, P=0.011). They also had longer post-operative stays compared to Chinese (7.42±6.46 days; 7.40±7.69 days vs. 4.88±2.87 days, P=0.036). Malays were much less likely to undergo robotic partial nephrectomy compared to Chinese patients (OR=0.295, 95% CI=0.102-0.856) and had the highest rate of metastatic recurrence (10.5%, P=0.023).