An Inflammatory Fibroid Polyp in the Hepatic Flexure of the Colon Treated with Argon Plasma Coagulation, Endoscopic Clipping and Polypectomy

Inflammatory fibroid polyp (IFP) is a rare benign polypoid lesion of the gastrointestinal tract. Most IFPs occur in the stomach and colonic occurrence is very rare. Histologically IFP is characterized by a mixture of numerous small vessels, fibroblasts and edematous connective tissue associated with marked inflammatory infiltration by eosinophils. We present a rare case of a pedunculated IFP in the hepatic flexure of the colon treated successfully with a combination of argon plasma coagulation, endoclipping and polypectomy. A 74-year-old asymptomatic female underwent a screening colonoscopy in our hospital. A 12-mm pedunculated polyp was found at the hepatic flexure of the colon. After saline injection, we attempted to remove the polyp with a hot snare. However the polyp stalk was extremely difficult to resect despite several attempts with the hot snare. We placed an endoclip at the base of the stalk and then applied argon plasma coagulation at 1.0 l/min and 40 W. After these measures we were able to resect the stalk and the polyp was retrieved. Histologically the polyp was located in the submucosa of the gastrointestinal tract. Proliferation of spindle cells and infiltration of inflammatory cells such as plasma cells and eosinophils were observed. The spindle cells were positive for CD34 and S100 but negative for c-kit and muscle markers. These findings are consistent with a histopathological diagnosis of IFP

Cost-minimization analysis in a blind randomized trial on small-incision versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy from a societal perspective: sick leave outweighs efforts in hospital savings

Background: After its introduction, laparoscopic cholecystectomy rapidly expanded around the world and was accepted the procedure of choice by consensus. However, analysis of evidence shows no difference regarding primary outcome measures between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. In absence of clear clinical benefit it may be interesting to focus on the resource use associated with the available techniques, a secondary outcome measure. This study focuses on a difference in costs between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy from a societal perspective with emphasis on internal validity and generalisability Methods: A blinded randomized single-centre trial was conducted in a general teaching hospital in The Netherlands. Patients with reasonable to good health diagnosed with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis scheduled for cholecystectomy were included. Patients were randomized between laparoscopic and small-incision cholecystectomy. Total costs were analyzed from a societal perspective. Results: Operative costs were higher in the laparoscopic group using reusable laparoscopic instruments (difference 203 euro; 95% confidence interval 147 to 259 euro). There were no significant differences in the other direct cost categories (outpatient clinic and admittance related costs), indirect costs, and total costs. More than 60% of costs in employed patients were caused by sick leave. Conclusion: Based on differences in costs, small-incision cholecystectomy seems to be the preferred operative technique over the laparoscopic technique both from a hospital and societal cost perspective. Sick leave associated with convalescence after cholecystectomy in employed patients results in considerable costs to society

Avoiding or Reversing Hartmann’s Procedure Provides Improved Quality of Life After Perforated Diverticulitis

# 2010 The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Introduction The existing literature regarding acute perforated diverticulitis only reports about short-term outcome; longterm following outcomes have not been assessed before. The aim of this study was to assess long-term quality of life (QOL) after emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis. Patients and Methods Validated QOL questionnaires (EQ-VAS, EQ-5D index, QLQ-C30, and QLQ-CR38) were sent to all eligible patients who had undergone emergency surgery for perforated diverticulitis in five teaching hospitals between 199

The ladies trial: laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or resection for purulent peritonitisA and Hartmann's procedure or resection with primary anastomosis for purulent or faecal peritonitisB in perforated diverticulitis (NTR2037)

Background: Recently, excellent results are reported on laparoscopic lavage in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis as an alternative for sigmoidectomy and ostomy. The objective of this study is to determine whether LaparOscopic LAvage and drainage is a safe and effective treatment for patients with purulent peritonitis (LOLA-arm) and to determine the optimal resectional strategy in patients with a purulent or faecal peritonitis (DIVA-arm: perforated DIVerticulitis: sigmoidresection with or without Anastomosis). Methods/Design: In this multicentre randomised trial all patients with perforated diverticulitis are included. Upon laparoscopy, patients with purulent peritonitis are treated with laparoscopic lavage and drainage, Hartmann's procedure or sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis in a ratio of 2:1:1 (LOLA-arm). Patients with faecal peritonitis will be randomised 1:1 between Hartmann's procedure and resection with primary anastomosis (DIVA-arm). The primary combined endpoint of the LOLA-arm is major morbidity and mortality. A sample size of 132:66:66 patients will be able to detect a difference in the primary endpoint from 25% in resectional groups compared to 10% in the laparoscopic lavage group (two sided alpha = 5%, power = 90%). Endpoint of the DIVA-arm is stoma free survival one year after initial surgery. In this arm 212 patients are needed to significantly demonstrate a difference of 30% (log rank test two sided alpha = 5% and powe

Laparoscopic versus small-incision cholecystectomy: Health status in a blind randomised trial

Contains fulltext : 69536.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Gallstones are a major cause of morbidity, and cholecystectomy is a commonly performed procedure. Minimal invasive procedures, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) and small-incision cholecystectomy (SIC), have replaced the classical open cholecystectomy. No differences have been found in primary outcome measures between LC and SIC, therefore secondary outcome measures have to be considered to determine preferences. The aim of our study was to examine health status applying evidence-based guidelines in LC and SIC in a randomised trial. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic cholecystolithiasis were included in a blind randomised trial. Operative procedures, anaesthesia, analgesics and postoperative care were standardised in order to limit bias. Questionnaires were filled in preoperatively, the first day postoperatively, and at outpatients follow-up at 2, 6 and 12 weeks. In accordance with evidence-based guidelines, the generic short form (SF-36) and the disease-specific gastrointestinal quality-of-life index (GIQLI) questionnaires were used in addition to the body image questionnaire (BIQ). RESULTS: A total of 257 patients were randomised between LC (120) and SIC (137). Analyses were performed according to intention-to-treat (converted procedures included) and also distinguishing converted from minimal invasive (nonconverted) procedures. Questionnaires were obtained with a response rate varying from 87.5% preoperatively to 77.4% three months postoperatively. Except for two time-specific measurements in one SF-36 subscale, there were no differences between LC and SIC. There were significant differences in several subscales in all three questionnaires comparing minimal invasive versus converted procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Applying adequate methodological quality and evidence-based guidelines (by using SF-36 and GIQLI), there are no significant differences in health status between LC and SIC