Neuroendocrine tumor (Merkel cell carcinoma-MCC) of the vulva is a very rare entity with less than 15 cases reported in the English literature. It is known for its aggressive behaviour and propensity for early dissemination. The actual cell of origin and etiology of this disease is controversial. In absence of any definite guidelines for management (due to its rarity), extrapolation of data from extra-vulvar MCC seems logical. We present a case of vulvar neuroendocrine tumor who presented at a locally advanced stage.
Uterine involvement in EOC is not common. Absence of gross uterine involvement reliably predicts absence of microscopic disease.
Background and Objectives: Empyema thoracis is a condition in which pus collects in the pleural cavity. The optimal treatment of Empyema thoracis especially in the fibrinopurulent phase (Stage II) remains controversial. While the Inter Costal Drainage (ICD) is less invasive and cheap, it is not clearly proved that it is better than the Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) in terms of conversion into thoracotomy, morbidity and duration of hospital stay. No large randomized trial is available for comparing the two treatment strategies in the condition. Methodology:This study was a prospective comparative study of ICD insertion versus VATS as primary intervention in the fibrinopurulent stage of Empyema thoracis, which was conducted over a period of 2 years (Dec 2008 to Nov 2010), in a tertiarry care Medical College Hospital. With an incidence of around 5-10% and a considerable burden in our hospital, the study was taken up to compare the efficacy of ICD versus VATS, in terms of morbidity and cost effectiveness and to identify the optimal way of managing the condition. The study included a total of 40 patients with each group consisting of 20 patients. Sampling: Purposive sampling technique.The Statistical Methods Used: Descriptive statistics, Frequencies, Crosstabs, Independent sample t-test.Results: It was found that VATS was better than the conventional ICD insertion in terms of the variables like mean duration of hospital stay (p<0.05), mean duration of the chest tube in situ (p<0.05), mean cost of the treatment (p<0.05), complications (p<0.05) and failure rate (p<0.05) which were statistically significant. Conclusion:Our study concluded that Video Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery is better than conventional ICD tube insertion as a primary mode of treatment in the fibrinopurulent stage of Empyema thoracis.
Background: Laparoscopic ventral hernia repair has better out comes when compared to open mesh repair. But closure of the hernial defect is still a contentious issue. This study is designed to compare the outcome of closure versus non-closure of hernia defect in laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.Methods: A 2 years prospective randomized controlled study was conducted on 60 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic ventral hernia repair in the Department of General Surgery (November 2016 to October 2018).Results: The patients in the two groups were analyzed using Chi-square, ANOVA, Fisher exact test, and results were formulated. The mean age of ventral hernia was 41 years and overall incidence more in females. Paraumbilical hernia is the commonest variety of ventral hernia and 63.3% hernias were reducible. Average post-operative length of hospital stay was 2 days with no difference in both the groups. Post-operative pain was more in intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) plus group. Seroma formation and Incidence of mesh bulge was found be more in IPOM group, but there was no difference in the incidence of chronic pain or recurrence rate between the two groups. All the above proved statistical significance.Conclusions: Primary defect closure in ventral hernia along with mesh placement in laparoscopy seems to have better outcome, with respect to less chance of seroma formation and mesh bulge.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
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.