The best treatment for pulmonary hydatid cyst disease is surgery, which is associated with low mortality and morbidity rates. The most common and acceptable treatment is extraction of the cyst membrane without manipulating the pericyst and closure of small airways. Pulmonary resection should be reserved for complicated forms of the disease.

Background: Hemorrhoidal disease is the most common rectal disorder and many modalities

No abstract

Introduction:The incidence of esophageal cancer has been increasing in the last decade. Different types of treatments are available, including minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE). The aim of this study was to compare the early outcomes of the open vs totally laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy. Materials and methods: This case-control study was conducted between May 2012 and January 2014. Patients with esophageal cancer who presented to Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad, Iran, were assessed and their eligibility for the surgery type was investigated. Results: Ninety-three esophagectomies performed. The open group comprised 57 patients and the laparoscopic group consisted of 36 patients. Mortality occurred in three patients in the open group and seven patients in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.05). Chylothorax happened in four patients in the open group and only in one patient in the laparoscopic, which showed no significant difference. The mean operating time was 75 ± 16 minutes in the open group and 125 ± 25 minutes in the laparoscopic group (p < 0.05). Conclusion:Minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy is an available option for treatment of esophageal cancer, but our results should be interpreted with caution due to low sample size and our primary experience in patient selection.

In medical literature, studies are divided into two categories; experimental and observational settings. Experimental studies, entitled randomized controlled trials could test the relationship between exposure and outcome experimentally via control group and random allocation. Observational settings include either analytical or descriptive studies. Descriptive studies consist of case reports and case series that are helpful in present the experience of a case or a series of cases with similar diagnoses in detail which results in hypothesis generation. Cross-sectional studies, as analytical designs, are not capable to survey the temporality of exposure and outcome as simultaneously exposure and outcome status are measured. In case-control studies, subjects follow back from outcome to exposure. The rare diseases are recommended to study using case-control setting to save expenses and time. Both exposure measurement and patient selection is before disease detection in cohort studies. Therefore, they are inefficient for rare diseases or diseases with long latency. Cohort studies are time consuming with high cost and loss to follow-up. This paper elaborately reviews the features, advantages, and disadvantages of different types of observational and experimental studies.