Direct pancreatoscopy.

R A Kozarek

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 7728347

Direct pancreatoscopy.

R A Kozarek

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Direct pancreatoscopy has inherent limitations, which include lack of instrument availability, scope fragility, small image size, lack of traditional endoscope features, and need for two endoscopists. Despite the above, centers with large pancreaticobiliary referral practice will selectively use this technology both diagnostically and therapeutically. The variability of pancreatic duct angulation and diameter, the presence of variably obstructing stenoses or filling defects, and the need to concomitantly apply this technology to the biliary tree all suggest that a family of miniscopes will be required as opposed to a single "ideal" instrument.

Explore related subjects

Calculi Chronic Disease Diagnosis, Differential Endoscopy, Digestive System Equipment Design Humans Lithotripsy Pancreatic Diseases Pancreatic Neoplasms Pancreatitis Journal Article Review

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

R A Kozarek. 1995. Direct pancreatoscopy.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7728347/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Surveillance of testicular microlithiasis? Results of an UK based national questionnaire survey.

BACKGROUND: The association of testicular microlithiasis with testicular tumour and the need for follow-up remain largely unclear. METHODS: We conducted a national questionnaire survey involving consultant BAUS members (BAUS is the official national organisation (like the AUA in USA) of the practising urologists in the UK and Ireland), to provide a snapshot of current attitudes towards investigation and surveillance of patients with testicular microlithiasis. RESULTS: Of the 464 questionnaires sent to the BAUS membership, 263(57%) were returned. 251 returns (12 were incomplete) were analysed, of whom 173(69%) do and 78(31%) do not follow-up testicular microlithiasis. Of the 173 who do follow-up, 119(69%) follow-up all patients while 54(31%) follow-up only a selected group of patients. 172 of 173 use ultra sound scan while 27(16%) check tumour makers. 10(6%) arrange ultrasound scan every six months, 151(88%) annually while 10(6%) at longer intervals. 66(38%) intend to follow-up these patients for life while, 80(47%) until 55 years of age and 26(15%) for up to 5 years. 173(68.9%) believe testicular microlithiasis is associated with CIS in < 1%, 53(21%) think it is between 1&10% while 7(3%) believe it is > 10%. 109(43%) believe those patients who develop a tumour, will have survival benefit with follow-up while 142(57%) do not. Interestingly, 66(38%) who follow-up these patients do not think there is a survival benefit. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in how patients with testicular microlithiasis are followed-up. However a majority of consultant urologists nationally, believe surveillance of this patient group confers no survival benefit. There is a clear need to clarify this issue in order to recommend a coherent surveillance policy.

Calculi↗

PubMed2006

[Microlithiasis and testicular tumour].

Testicular microlithiasis is a rare entity, usually asymptomatic and bilateral. There are however reports that until 40% of the cases may be related with testicular tumours. We report an 11-year-old boy, with a four-month history of left testicular mass. Sonography showed increased volume of left testis and bilateral microlithiasis. Testicular biopsy revealed Sertoli cell tumour and he was submitted to left radical orquidectomy. Testicular cancer is often curable, especially if diagnosed and treated early. The association of malignancy justifies long term clinical and ultrasound follow-up of testicular microlithiasis.

Calculi↗

PubMed2006

Handling and prevention of complications in stone basketing.

OBJECTIVE: To review the incidence, risk factors, and treatment options of intraoperative and postoperative complications of stone basketing in urology with emphasis on certain principles that must be upheld to prevent those complications. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the MEDLINE database on stone basketing between 1970 and 2005. RESULTS: Iatrogenic trauma due to retrieval of a stone is well known but the exact incidence is difficult to ascertain. Rarely, stone basketing can cause major trauma to the ureter, such as avulsion or intussusception, requiring open or laparoscopic intervention for ureteral continuity restoration. Mucosal abrasion, ureteral perforation, and stricture formation have also been described as complications of stone basketing. Occasionally, the engaged or broken basket can provoke anxiety even for experienced urologists. Factors that increase the risk of complications, strategies for repair, and techniques for prevention are discussed extensively. CONCLUSION: Infrequent, surgical misadventures during stone basketing can occur and must be treated appropriately. Careful attention to instrument selection and surgical techniques and awareness of risk factors and type and site of potential injury are essential to reduce these complications.

Calculi↗