METHODS: Formulation of the guidelines was based on the best scientific evidence available. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM) was used. Panellists recruited comprised experts in surgery, interventional EUS, interventional radiology and oncology from 11 countries. Between June 2014 and October 2016, the panellists met in meetings to discuss and vote on the clinical scenarios for each of the interventional EUS procedures in question.
RESULTS: A total of 15 statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, 15 statements on EUS-guided biliary drainage, 12 statements on EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and 14 statements on EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation were formulated. The statements addressed the indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre- and post-procedural management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. All statements except one were found to be appropriate. Randomised studies to address clinical questions in a number of aspects of the procedures are urgently required.
CONCLUSIONS: The current guidelines on interventional EUS procedures are the first published by an endoscopic society. These guidelines provide an in-depth review of the current evidence and standardise the management of the procedures.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was carried out in two local neurosurgical centres. The SPD group was performed in Hospital Umum Sarawak (HUS) and the SDD group was performed in Hospital Sultanah Aminah Johor Bahru (HSAJB), from 1 January 2012 till 30 January 2014 with a total of 30 patients in both treatment groups.
RESULTS: Overall, there were no statistically significant difference in terms of patient general characteristics, pre-operative and post-operative symptoms, Markwalder grades, post-operative hematoma volume and recurrence, mortality and functional outcome at discharge and at three month follow-up between both groups. Albeit not achieving statistical significance, we observed a lower rate of surgical complication especially for post-operative intracranial hematoma with placement of the SPD system.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study concludes that both treatment methods proved to be highly effective in the treatment of CSDH. However, with a lower overall surgical complication rate, treatment with single burr-hole craniostomy, irrigation and placement of the SPD system can be considered a treatment of choice for the management of symptomatic CSDH.
CASE PRESENTATION: A 14-year-old boy presented to our institution with peri-umbilical swelling and purulent discharge from his umbilicus for 2 weeks duration. There were no radiological, microbiological or clinical evidences of TB in the initial presentation, though he had close social contact with someone who had TB. A computed tomography scan of the abdomen confirmed the diagnosis of an urachal abscess. An incision and drainage procedure was performed followed by a course of antibiotics. A scheduled laparoscopic approach later showed that the peritoneum and serosal surface of the small and large intestines were studded with nodules of variable sizes, in addition to the urachal sinus. The histology of the resected tissues (urachal sinus and nodules) was consistent of TB infection. He recovered fully after completing 6 months of anti-tuberculous therapy.
CONCLUSION: This report highlights a rare case of TB urachal abscess in an adolescent boy, the difficulties in the diagnosis of abdominal tuberculosis, the need to consider TB as a cause of urachal infection in endemic areas and the use of laparoscopy in both diagnosis and treatment.
METHODS: Scanning electron microscopy was performed on P50 and P200 devices. Bench-top flow studies were performed to find the resistances of the devices. Devices were also incorporated into a perfused, ex vivo porcine sclera model to test and compare their control of pressure, with and without overlying scleral flaps, and with trabeculectomies.
RESULTS: The luminal dimensions of the P200 device were 206.4±3.3 and 204.5±0.9 μm at the subconjunctival space and anterior chamber ends, respectively. Those of the P50 device were 205.0±5.8 and 206.9±3.7 μm, respectively. There were no significant differences between the P200 and P50 devices (all P>0.05). The resistances of the P200 and P50 devices were 0.010±0.001 and 0.054±0.002 mm Hg/μL/min, respectively (P<0.05). Equilibrium pressures with overlying scleral flaps were 17.81±3.30 mm Hg for the P50, 17.31±4.24 mm Hg for the P200, and 16.28±6.67 mm Hg for trabeculectomies (P=0.850).
CONCLUSIONS: The luminal diameters of both devices are externally similar. The effective luminal diameter of the P50 is much larger than 50 μm. Both devices have low resistance values, making them unlikely to prevent hypotony on their own. They lead to similar equilibrium pressures as the trabeculectomy procedure when inserted under the scleral flap.
METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on a group of paediatric population aged 0 till 12 years of age, with a history of admission to paediatric ENT ward from the year 2010 till 2015 in HTJS. Initially, 69 children with the diagnoses of various neck infections were identified. Then, the sample amount was narrowed to 30 patients with neck abscesses only.
RESULTS: The data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test. Twentyfive out of the 30 patients required operative drainage of abscess (83.3%). In this group, children aged ≤2 years old were the largest group to have undergone surgical drainage. Only five patients were successfully treated with antibiotic therapy alone. Nineteen children came only after developing neck swelling for more than a week, in which 18 of them required surgery.
CONCLUSION: Younger group of children are more likely to undergo surgical drainage than older children for neck abscess. Also, children who came in after two weeks of symptoms have a higher probablity of requiring surgery than antbiotic alone. Nonetheless, every child who comes in with neck abscess should be evaluated and treated early to avoid any sinister complications.
METHODS: This retrospective study presents a total of 257 operations in 243 patients from 2 hospitals. A total of 130 cases were operated under LA sedation in hospital 1 and 127 cases under GA in hospital 2. Patient demographics and presenting features were similar at baseline.
RESULTS: Values are shown as LA sedation versus GA. Postoperatively, most patients recovered well in both groups with Glasgow Outcome Scale scores of 4-5 (96.2% vs. 88.2%, respectively). The postoperative morbidity was significantly increased by an odds ratio of 5.44 in the GA group compared with the LA sedation group (P = 0.005). The mortality was also significantly higher in the GA group (n = 5, 3.9%) than the LA sedation group (n = 0, 0.0%; P = 0.028). The CSDH recurrence rate was 4.6% in the LA sedation group versus 6.3% in the GA group. No intraoperative conversion from LA sedation to GA was reported.
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that CSDH drainage under LA sedation is safe and efficacious, with a significantly lower risk of postoperative mortality and morbidity when compared with GA.