Malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) is a commonly encountered palliative care problem. There have been very few comparative trials in this area, and consequently there is very little clinical evidence upon which therapy can be rationally based. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the discussion and decision-making process that was undertaken by the Clinical Protocol Subcommittee during the development of a proposed clinical trial of best medical care versus surgical or endoscopic treatment for MBO. The development of the proposed clinical trials followed an orderly process. The first step taken was a discussion of a specific definition for MBO. Once agreed upon, this definition helped identify inclusion and exclusion criteria for the proposed trial. This was followed by an extensive literature review, which helped define both surgical and endoscopic approaches to MBO as well as what constituted best medical care. An extensive discussion was then undertaken concerning the best outcome measure of success for medical, surgical, and endoscopic interventions. All of the above steps culminated in two proposed protocols, one for MBO of the small intestine distal to the ligament of Treitz and a second for colonic obstructions. The small intestinal trial is designed to compare surgical intervention versus best medical care, whereas the colonic trial seeks to compare surgery with endoscopically-placed intraluminal stents coupled with best medical care.

LSC and APC have similar clinical and radiological outcomes. Further blinded randomised trials are required to establish conclusive evidence in favour of LSC with regards to minimising post-operative dysphagia. We also encourage future studies to make use of formalised dysphagia outcome measures in reporting complications.

Rats in which the sciatic nerve is partially transected develop hyperalgesia which is relieved by sympathectomy. We carried out experiments using this model of experimental peripheral neuropathy to examine the peripheral mechanisms underlying sympathetically maintained pain. Subcutaneous injection of noradrenaline (NA) into the affected paw exacerbated the hyperalgesia but had no effect in control animals. Injection of the non-specific alpha-adrenergic blocker phentolamine and the alpha 2-adrenergic blocker yohimbine significantly relieved the hyperalgesia, while injection of the alpha 1-adrenergic blocker prazosin had no effect. Peripheral injection of the alpha 2-adrenergic agonist clonidine had no significant effect, while injection of the alpha 1-adrenergic agonist phenylephrine produced slight exacerbation of mechanical hyperalgesia. Hyperalgesia was eliminated by peripheral injection of indomethacin into the affected paw. Following a chemical sympathectomy, hyperalgesia was eliminated and injection of NA into the hyperalgesic paw had no effect on pain thresholds. We concluded that NA exacerbates hyperalgesia in this experimental model by acting on alpha 2-adrenoreceptors which are located on post-ganglionic sympathetic terminals. Our results are consistent with the proposal (Levine et al. 1986) that activation of these adrenoreceptors brings about an increased release of prostaglandins which sensitises nociceptors.

This study strongly supports the use of PLIF to obtain equivalent or superior clinical outcomes compared with PLF for spinal fusion for lumbar IS. Although there are considerable issues when commenting on the results of observational studies, the results of this study are the first to report long-term follow-up beyond 2 years, and further larger long-term randomized studies are suggested.

Preoperative DVT prophylaxis does not influence the rate of postoperative DVT or PE among elective spinal patients. It probably does not influence SEH rate, and it is noted that SEH may present quite late, in contrast to currently accepted time courses.