PubMed · 14929464
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J H MILLS. 1952. Multiple liver abscess.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14929464/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinicopathological significance of microscopic abscess formation (MAF) at the invasive front of advanced low rectal cancer. METHODS: The clinicopathological features of 226 consecutive patients with low rectal cancer, who underwent curative resection between May 1997 and December 2002, were analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (25.2 per cent) of the 226 tumours had MAF and 169 (74.8 per cent) did not. Patients with tumours showing MAF were more likely to have extended surgery than those without MAF: 47 versus 31.4 per cent respectively underwent non-sphincter-preserving surgery (P=0.029) and 82 versus 60.9 per cent underwent lateral lymph node dissection (P=0.003). The incidence of lymph node metastases was lower in patients with MAF (30 versus 53.3 per cent; P=0.002). Univariable analysis of disease-free survival revealed that depth of invasion (P<0.001), lymph node status (P<0.001), histological type (P=0.035), lymphatic invasion (P<0.001), venous invasion (P<0.001), perineural invasion (P<0.001), focal dedifferentiation (P<0.001) and MAF (P<0.001) were significant prognostic factors. Multivariable analysis showed that lymph node status (P<0.001), perineural invasion (P=0.002), venous invasion (P=0.033) and MAF (P=0.012) remained independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: MAF may reflect indolent tumour behaviour and a more favourable outcome in patients with advanced low rectal cancer.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcome of treatment of tubo-ovarian abscesses by imaging-guided drainage and antibiotics vs. intravenous antibiotics alone. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all patients hospitalized with a diagnosis of tubo-ovarian abscess was performed. Patients were categorized into two groups. The first group consisted of subjects treated with intravenous antibiotics alone. Patients in the second group had primary image-guided drainage with concomitant intravenous antibiotics. Treatment failures in the primary antibiotics group underwent salvage drainage when feasible. The primary outcome of interest was complete response. Secondary outcomes included need for additional treatment, duration of resolution of fever, total length of hospital stay, and complication rates. We also evaluated the effectiveness of secondary drainage in patients who failed primary antibiotic therapy alone. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients were included in the study. Fifty patients were treated primarily with intravenous antibiotics; eight patients had primary drainage, which was guided by ultrasound in all cases. Complete response was noted in 29 (58%) patients treated with antibiotics alone. All eight (100%) patients in the primary drainage group responded to treatment. Of the 21 treatment failures with primary antibiotics, two underwent surgery and 19 (90.5%) had salvage drainage with either ultrasound or computed tomographic guidance; 18 of 19 salvage drainages led to complete recovery. Subjects in the primary drainage group required shorter hospital stays and showed more rapid resolution of fever. No significant morbidity was noted as a consequence of drainage procedures. A higher failure rate for secondary drainage was noted in older patients, those with larger tubo-ovarian abscesses, and those with a history of pelvic inflammatory disease. CONCLUSION: Drainage of tubo-ovarian abscesses with concomitant intravenous antibiotics is an effective and safe treatment for the primary or secondary treatment of tubo-ovarian abscesses.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the efficacy of laparoscopic appendectomy in patients with perforated appendicitis. METHODS: This study involved a total of 73 consecutive patients who had undergone appendectomy for perforated appendicitis between January 1999 and December 2004. While 39 patients underwent open appendectomy (OA) during the first 3 years, the remaining 34 patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) during the last 3 years. RESULTS: There was no case of LA converted to OA. No significant difference was found in the operating time between the two groups. Laparoscopic appendectomy was associated with less analgesic use, earlier oral intake restart (LA, 2.6 days; OA, 5.1 days), shorter median hospital stay (LA, 11.7 days; OA, 25.8 days), and lower rate of wound infections (LA, 8.8%; OA, 43.6%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that LA for perforated appendicitis is a safe procedure that may prove to have significant clinical advantages over conventional surgery.