IntroductionOne of the rare manifestations of systemic neoplasia is intramedullary spinal cord metastasis that causes serious diagnostic and therapeutic dilemma. It has been very rarely reported as the initial manifestation of carcinoma. This is report of a metastatic renal cell carcinoma initially presented with intramedullary spinal cord lesion, to our knowledge there are few similar reports in literature.Case presentationWe report a 51-year-old Iranian woman who presented with back pain and paraparesis. MR imaging study of her spine showed an enhancing cystic lesion at the level of conus medullaris. Despite detailed investigation, no specific aetiology was found till a bone scan obtained to evaluate an agonizing pain on the dorsum of the left hand revealed photon deficient area within the left kidney in addition to oseoblastic bony lesions. After thorough imaging investigation she underwent radical nephrectomy which confirmed renal cell carcinoma.ConclusionConsidering the prevalence of cancer, it is imperative that clinicians be mindful of occult carcinoma as the cause of suspicious intramedullary spinal cord lesion.

Although our patients were younger than myocardial infarction patients in developed countries, they had a higher rate of in-hospital mortality than those of the international statistics. This may be due, in part, to the lower rate of administration of primary reperfusion strategies in our center, namely primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolytic therapy, which have proved to be effective in reducing the mortality from myocardial infarction in the west. Wider application of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, in particular, is recommended.

Background: Chronic constipation is a common health concern. Defecatory disorders are considered one of the mechanisms of chronic idiopathic constipation. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of concurrent irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) on the success rate and response to biofeedback therapy in patients with chronic constipation and pelvic floor dyssynergia (PFD). Methods: This prospective cohort study was performed at the Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex in Tehran from October 2020 to July 2021. Patients aged 18–70 years with chronic constipation and PFD confirmed by clinical examination, anorectal manometry, balloon expulsion test, and/or defecography were included. All patients failed to respond to treatment with lifestyle modifications and laxative use. The diagnosis of IBS was based on the ROME IV criteria. Biofeedback was educated and recommended to all patients. We used three different metrics to assess the patient’s response to biofeedback: 1) constipation score (questionnaire), 2) lifestyle score (questionnaire), and 3) manometry findings (gastroenterologist report).Results: Forty patients were included in the final analysis, of which 7 men (17.5%) and 21 (52.2%) had IBS. The mean age of the study population was 37.7 ± 11.4. The average resting pressure decreased in response to treatment; however, this decrease was statistically significant only in non-IBS patients (P = 0.007). Patients with and without IBS showed an increase in the percentage of anal sphincter relaxation in response to treatment, but this difference was not statistically significant. Although the first sensation decreased in both groups, this decrease was not statistically significant. Overall, the clinical response was the same across IBS and non-IBS patients, but constipation and lifestyle scores decreased significantly in both groups of patients with and without IBS (P < 0.001).Conclusion: Biofeedback treatment appears to improve the clinical condition and quality of life of patients with PFD. Considering that a better effect of biofeedback in correcting some manometric parameters has been seen in patients with IBS, it seems that paying attention to the association between these two diseases can be helpful in deciding on treatment.

Background: Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is the most common esophageal motility disorder associated with low-to-moderate amplitude contractions in the distal esophagus in manometric evaluations. Despite recent new conceptions regarding the pathophysiology of esophageal motility and IEM, there are still no effective therapeutic interventions for the treatment of this disorder. This study aimed to investigate the effect of buspirone in the treatment of concomitant IEM and GERD. Methods and Materials: The present study was a randomized clinical trial conducted at the Imam Khomeini Hospital, Tehran. Patients with a history of gastroesophageal reflux disease and dysphagia underwent upper endoscopy to rule out any mechanical obstruction and were diagnosed with an ineffective esophageal motility disorder based on high-resolution manometry. They were given a package containing the desired medication(s); half of the packets contained 10 mg (for 30 days) of buspirone and 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole, and the other half contained only 40 mg (for 30 days) of pantoprazole. Dysphagia was scored based on the Mayo score, as well as a table of dysphagia severity. Manometric variables were recorded before and after the treatment. Results: Thirty patients (15 pantoprazole and 15 pantoprazole plus buspirone) were included. Females comprised 63.3% of the population, with a mean age of 46.33 ± 11.15. The MAYO score and resting LES pressure significantly changed after treatment. The MAYO and Swallowing Disorder Questionnaire scores significantly decreased after treatment in both groups of patients. Our results revealed that the post-intervention values of manometric variables differed significantly between the two groups after controlling for the baseline values of the variables. This analysis did not demonstrate the superiority of buspirone. Conclusion: Buspirone seems to have no superiority over PPI. Treatment with concomitant IEM and GERD using proton pump inhibitors improves the patient’s clinical condition and quality of life. However, adding buspirone to the treatment regimen did not appear to make a significant difference in patient treatment.