BIB treatment in our setting showed the best results for individuals with BMI from 35 to 40 kg/m(2). Our preliminary results showed that BIB is safe, well tolerated with minor side effects, and alters quality of life for the better. The complication rate was negligible, due to the detailed pretreatment examinations and follow-up.
The importance of ghrelin and leptin in treatment-induced changes was reaffirmed. Ghrelin hyper-response in non-morbidly obese subjects characterized greater short-term treatment efficiency and landmarked an inclination to weight regain. The results suggest a potential pattern of individualization between obese patients according to body mass index towards intragastric balloon or bariatric surgery. Further studies are needed in order to get better insights in the pathophysiologic mechanisms of obesity.
Background: Bariatric procedures are effective options for weight loss (WL) in the morbidly obese. However, some patients fail to lose any weight after bariatric surgery, and mid-term weight maintenance is variable. The aim of this study was to investigate whether initial WL could predict mid-term weight maintenance. Methods: Eighty patients were enrolled, of whom 44 were treated with the BioEnterics Intragastric Balloon (BIB), 21 with laparoscopic adjustable gastric lap-banding (LAGB), and 15 with laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG). Percentage of body WL and percentage of excess weight loss (EWL) were calculated at baseline and after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Successful WL was defined as EWL > 20% for patients treated with BIB and > 50% for patients treated with LAGB and SG. Results: Success in the 6th and 12th month was achieved in 80% and 58% of patients in the BIB group, 33% and 40% in the LAGB group, and 60% and 73% in the LSG group. In the BIB group, WL in the 1st month correlated positively with WL at the 6th and 12th month, and an initial WL > 6.5% best predicted success (sensitivity 50%, specificity 80%). A similar association was observed in the LAGB group at the 6th and 12th month and an initial WL > 9.4% best predicted success (sensitivity 90.0%, specificity 81.2%). In patients treated with LSG, WL in the 3rd month correlated positively with EWL at the 6th and 12th month, with a cutoff value of 17% (sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 100%). Conclusions: WL in the 1st month in patients treated with BIB and LAGB and WL in the 3rd month in patients treated with LSG could be used as a prognostic factor to predict mid-term weight maintenance.
Intrathyroidal parathyroid carcinoma is extremely rare clinical entity with potentially multiple diagnostic pitfalls. We report a case of 40-year-old man presented with classical manifestations of primary hyperparathyroidism, severe hypercalcemia and profoundly increased serum parathyroid hormone level. Neck ultrasonography demonstrated multinodular goiter with predominant 34 mm nodule in left thyroid lobe. Additional 16 mm nodule was found beneath the left lobe. Routine percutaneous fine-needle aspiration of predominant nodule indicated follicular thyroid carcinoma, while left inferior nodule was confirmed to be of parathyroid origin. The patient underwent surgery, during which frozen sections identified medullary thyroid carcinoma with metastasis to upper mediastinal lymph node. Permanent sections of the predominant left lobe nodule revealed intrathyroidal parathyroid carcinoma surrounded with multiple microscopic metastases. Left inferior nodule was metastatic lymph node. Additional 10 mm intrathyroidal metastasis of primary parathyroid carcinoma was found within right thyroid lobe. This case indicates that fine-needle-aspiration and intraoperative biopsy are of limited value in diagnosing parathyroid carcinoma, especially if localized intrathyroidally. Oncological en-block resection is treatment of choice, implying ipsilateral lobectomy in case of thyroid invasion. This firstly described case of intrathyroidal parathyroid carcinoma causing intrathyroidal dissemination may influence future treatment strategies.
AIMTo compare the Glasgow-Blatchford score (GBS), Rockall score (RS) and Baylor bleeding score (BBS) in predicting clinical outcomes and need for interventions in patients with bleeding peptic ulcers.METHODSBetween January 2008 and December 2013, 1012 consecutive patients admitted with peptic ulcer bleeding (PUB) were prospectively followed. The pre-endoscopic RS, BBS and GBS, as well as the post-endoscopic diagnostic scores (RS and BBS) were calculated for all patients according to their urgent upper endoscopy findings. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics (AUROC) curves were calculated for the prediction of lethal outcome, rebleeding, needs for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention, and the optimal cutoff values were evaluated.RESULTSPUB accounted for 41.9% of all upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding, 5.2% patients died and 5.4% patients underwent surgery. By comparing the AUROC curves of the aforementioned pre-endoscopic scores, the RS best predicted lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.67 vs 0.63, respectively), but the GBS best predicted need for hospital-based intervention or 30-d mortality (AUROC 0.84 vs 0.57 vs 0.64), rebleeding (AUROC 0.75 vs 0.61 vs 0.53), need for blood transfusion (AUROC 0.83 vs 0.63 vs 0.58) and surgical intervention (0.82 vs 0.63 vs 0.52) The post-endoscopic RS was also better than the post-endoscopic BBS in predicting lethal outcome (AUROC 0.82 vs 0.69, respectively).CONCLUSIONThe RS is the best predictor of mortality and the GBS is the best predictor of rebleeding, need for blood transfusion and/or surgical intervention in patients with PUB. There is no one 'perfect score' and we suggest that these two tests be used concomitantly.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.