A hiatal hernia (HH) is a frequent finding in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We examined a consecutive series of patients with GERD diagnosed by a 24-hour pH monitoring. Based on the presence and size of HH on barium swallow, patients were divided into the following groups: no HH, HH <3 cm, HH 3–5 cm and HH >5 cm. A total of 175 patients were included: 43 with no HH, 86 with HH <3 cm, 34 with HH 3–5 cm, and 12 with HH >5 cm. Patients with larger HH had more frequent episodes of coughing and wheezing associated with episodes of reflux. High-resolution manometry showed that the increasing size of the HH was associated with decreasing pressure of the lower esophageal sphincter and weaker peristalsis. Ambulatory pH monitoring revealed that patients with larger HH had more acid reflux, in both the distal and proximal esophagus. Endoscopy showed that patients with larger HH had more severe esophagitis. Fifty per cent of patients with HH >5.0 cm had Barrett's esophagus. These findings should guide gastroenterologists and surgeons in choosing the appropriate therapy in patients with GERD and large HH.
Bladder cancer is a highly prevalent disease worldwide and is associated with a high mortality rate. Across all stages of bladder cancer, immunotherapy has now become the cornerstone of treatment. The commensal microbiome has become a major focus of research given its impact on numerous states of human health and disease. Many links between commensal microbes and immune function have been reported. Recently a commensal urinary microbiome has been identified and characterized in healthy individuals by several research groups. The urinary microbiome is now emerging as an important factor influencing bladder cancer development and therapeutic responsiveness. In this report, we identify findings from important clinical and mechanistic studies on the urinary microbiome and future opportunities to impact prevention and treatment of bladder cancer.
Purpose: Live case demonstrations have become a common occurrence at surgical meetings around the world. These demonstrations are meant to serve as an educational medium for teaching techniques, promote discussion, improve interventions and outcomes. Despite the valuable educational benefits, many authors still question the ethics of this approach. We present our 8-year experience in live surgery, discuss the ethical issues, and provide recommendations. Materials and Methods: We reviewed records of patients who underwent live robotic surgery during broadcasting events. Procedures performed were robot-assisted laparoscopic pyeloplasty (RAL-P), ureteral reimplantation (RALUR), and hemi-nephrectomy (RAL-HN). Peri-and post-operative outcomes were compared to our previously published case series. Results: From October 2011 to May 2019, the senior author (MSG) performed all live surgery demonstrations on 22 patients: 9 RAL-P, 9 RALUR, and 4 RAL-HN. Live RAL-Ps had a 100% success rate and lower 30-day Clavien-Dindo grade (CDG) III complications when compared to our previous case series (11.1% vs. 21.2%). RALURs performed during live demonstrations had a higher success rate than our previously published cohort (100% vs. 82%). RAL-HN operative time and length of stay were comparable to our nonlive control group. Conclusions: Live surgery is a valuable didactic tool, but even experienced surgeons may be adversely affected by inappropriate case selection, technical difficulty, and anxiety associated with particular settings, such as operating at different institutions or working with unfamiliar surgical teams. We suggest consultation of an ethics review board and formulation of standard guidelines for patient selection, surgical equipment, and operative team.
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.