Systematic review of self-expanding stents in the management of benign colorectal obstruction.

AIM: Colorectal obstruction due to benign disease is likely to become more prevalent. Self-expanding stents have been shown to be effective in reducing morbidity and allowing one-stage resection or improved palliation in colorectal cancer. This review assessed the use of self-expanding stents in benign colorectal obstruction. METHOD: A systematic review was performed using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Keywords included: 'benign disease' 'colorectal obstruction', 'stent', 'endoprosthesis' and 'prosthesis' Original articles from all relevant listings were sourced. These were hand searched for further articles of relevance. The main outcome measures assessed were technical and clinical success, perforation, reobstruction and stoma avoidance in the bridge to surgery population. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 130 articles; the 21 included studies yielded a pooled analysis of 122 patients. Diverticulitis was the predominant aetiology (66/122, 54%). Technical success was achieved in 115/122 (94%) and clinical success in 108/120 (87%) patients. Overall, the perforation rate was 12% (15/122) and the reobstruction rate was 14% (17/122). A stoma was avoided in 48% (23/48) of bridge to surgery patients. Perforation and stoma avoidance in the bridge to surgery group were worse with an aetiology of diverticulitis. CONCLUSION: Complication rates in stenting for benign colorectal obstruction are higher than for malignant obstruction. On the basis of limited published evidence, stenting cannot be recommended for benign colorectal obstruction.

HIV testing in Scotland. Are we meeting the standard? BASHH Scotland national audit 2004.

Most sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are associated with increased risk of HIV transmission. The draft Scottish Sexual Health Strategy (2003) proposed that 'HIV testing [should be] offered to all GUM clinic attendees not known to be HIV infected who present with a new STI. ... Reasons for non-uptake should be recorded.' We performed a national audit comparing practice in Scottish genitourinary (GU) medicine services against these standards. The results show that practice is highly variable but overall in 2004 Scottish GU medicine clinics were failing to meet the strategy standard.

Do chest physicians follow-up too many patients?

We have examined the pattern of attendance of 750 randomly selected regular attenders at a chest outpatient clinic and sought the patients' views on the frequency of their follow-up appointments and the possible consequences of discharge to the care of the general practitioners. In addition, the clinic doctors and the patients' general practitioners were asked about the appropriateness of the frequency of follow-up and whether the pattern of attendance should change or the patient be discharged. Patients were most commonly seen at three monthly intervals. Clinic doctors felt that 24% and general practitioners that 9% of patients attended too often while only 2% of patients felt that this was the case. Clinic doctors recommended discharge for 28% and general practitioners for 21% of patients. Sixty-nine per cent of patients felt that their condition would be unchanged or would improve if they were discharged to the care of their general practitioners. Our findings suggest that at least 20% of our patients should be discharged to the care of their general practitioners, and, if the patients are correct in their interpretation of the consequences of discharge, that as many as 70% could safely be discharged.

Evaluation of the need for follow-up in an out-patient clinic.

We have identified 164 patients regularly attending a chest clinic whose condition had been defined as stable on the basis of clear-cut criteria. These patients were randomly allocated to either routine follow-up at 3 monthly intervals (the 'follow-up' group) or annual follow-up (the 'discharge' group). After 1 year, on the basis of a questionnaire sent to the patients' general practitioners, there were no significant differences in outcome between the two groups apart from a just-significant increase in deaths in the 'follow-up' group. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the trial clinic doctors felt that only 45% of patients and general practitioners that only 27% of patients should be discharged from the clinic. At the conclusion of the study patients in the 'discharge' group were significantly more likely to feel that they had been attending too infrequently and that their condition had worsened, although the latter was not borne out by objective data. We suggest that all these patients could have been discharged from the clinic without any difference in outcome. This study highlights the reluctance of clinic doctors and general practitioners to consider and effect the discharge of stable patients from routine clinic attendance.