Isolated Sigmoid Colon Perforation in the Setting of Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Case Series.

Isolated colon injuries following blunt abdominal trauma have been reported with an incidence of 0.1-0.5 %, with sigmoid colon involvement being a rare entity. The sigmoid colon is reportedly involved only in 34.8% of isolated colonic injuries. The most common cause of colonic injuries is motor vehicle accidents. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography has a role in blunt trauma-induced bowel injury evaluation, with 82% accuracy and 64% sensitivity, but its role in the diagnostic evaluation of colonic injuries is controversial. Surgical treatment comprises primary closure, resection with or without anastomosis, and/or colostomy formation. Primary anastomosis is often favored, while colostomy creation is generally required if devascularized bowel segments present or infrequently in hemodynamic instability scenarios. Subsequent gross presentation, treatment delays due to diagnostic difficulties, and scarcity of management guidelines contribute to high morbidity and mortality. Additional research is required to accurately define patient presentation and explore the benefits of different surgical treatment options. Hereby is a case series comprising three adult male patients who presented with delayed diffuse severe abdominal pain and distension following blunt abdominal trauma. Computed tomography evaluation in the latter two had findings suggestive of pneumoperitoneum. Post resuscitation, exploratory laparotomy done in each patient denoted isolated sigmoid colon perforation with and without associated mesenteric hematoma. The decision of primary closure, resection with rectosigmoid anastomosis, and resection with end colostomy creation was taken in respective cases based on intraoperative findings of contamination, vascularity, and hemodynamics. Previously documented reports have mentioned findings of associated intra-abdominal solid organ injuries, which were absent in the present case series.

Expression of Poly(Adenosine Diphosphate-Ribose) Polymerase Protein in Breast Cancer.

Background: The use of poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors for breast cancer (BC) therapy is the subject of debate, and there is an urgent need to understand much the expression and prognostic role of the PARP1 protein. In this study, we have compared the expression of PARP between BC and benign breast disease (BBD) patients and also analyzed the association of PARP expression with clinicopathological parameters in BC. Methods: The study consists of 30 patients with newly diagnosed operable BC who were planned for surgery without neoadjuvant chemotherapy and 15 patients of BBD as a control between 2019 and 2021. Immunohistochemical analyses were performed prospectively on tissue samples. Anti-human PARP1 rabbit polyclonal antibody gives strong nuclear positivity. Internal control was the adipose tissue and the BBD acted as the external control. PARP1 expression was evaluated using the multiplicative quickscore method. Results: The mean age for BC patients was 51.30 ± 10.694 years (range: 25-75 years) while BBD was below 30 years. Overexpression of PARP was present in 25 (83.3%) and weak expression in 5 (16.7%) of BC patients compared to BBD, only 2 (13.3%) patients demonstrated an overexpression of PARP, and 13 (86.6%) patients showed weak expression which showed significant association (P < 0.001). In BC, nuclear PARP (nPARP) overexpression was seen in 22 (73.3%) patients and weak expression of nPARP in 8 (26.7%), whereas 5 (16.7%) patients showed cytoplasmic overexpression. On comparing expression of PARP with clinicopathological parameters, PARP overexpression was significantly associated with older population (age >50 years) (P = 0.002), postmenopausal women (P = 0.029), higher TNM stage (Stage II and III) (P = 0.014), higher histological grade (grade 2) (P = 0.043), and presence of lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.015). Enhanced PARP1 expression is closely correlated with positive estrogen receptor status (P = 0.001) and PR status (P = 0.001). Overall PARP and nPARP overexpression was significantly associated with ER- (P = 0.006 and P = 0.008) and PR-positive (P = 0.006 and P = 0.008) patients. The PARP and nPARP overexpression was significantly associated with nontriple-negative BC patients (P = 0.001 and P = 0.001). Conclusion: We have not come across any study in the literature to compare PARP expression in BC and BBD patients. On the basis of our observations, we concluded that PARP overexpression is a poor prognostic marker in BC.