Axial ablation versus terminal interruption of the reflux source (AAVTIRS): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of superficial venous reflux has been shown to improve ulcer healing time and reduce the risk of ulcer recurrence. Terminal ablation of the reflux source (TIRS) is an alternative to formal endovenous ablation or surgery which can be performed by injecting sclerosant foam into the peri-ulcer plexus of the veins. TIRS has been shown to be successful and in our experience is the option preferred by many patients, when offered as an alternative to axial ablation (AA). AIM: To determine if the proportion of ulcers healed within 6 months of endovenous treatment differs between patients undergoing AA of varicose veins or TIRS by peri-ulcer foam sclerotherapy. METHODS: AAVTIRS is an assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial. Patients will be recruited from a dedicated ulcer clinic in Roscommon University Hospital and from the vascular surgical clinics in University Hospital Galway. All patients attending the ulcer clinic will be screened for eligibility. RANDOMISATION: Random computer-generated sequence is stratified by ulcer size. Allocation will be concealed using sealed opaque envelopes. BLINDING: Assessors reviewing wounds at follow -p visits will be blinded to patient allocation. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: The proportion of ulcers healed within 6 months of enrolment. DISCUSSION: This will be the first time that TIRS has been evaluated with a properly powered randomised trial in the setting of venous ulcer management. Streamlining the management of venous ulcers has broad health economic benefits. If it is found that TIRS is superior or non-inferior to AA, then a less expensive, less invasive injection can be offered as an alternative to AA in an attempt to encourage the healing of venous ulcers. If AA is found to be superior to TIRS, then this would suggest that all patients undergoing ablation in the management of venous ulcers should have their superficial reflux fully treated, building on the evidence of the EVRA trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04484168. Registered on 23 July 2020.

Efficacy of vacuum erectile devices (VEDs) after radical prostatectomy: the initial Irish experience of a dedicated VED clinic.

Controversy exists regarding optimal penile rehabilitation program following radical prostatectomy (RP). Vacuum erectile devices (VEDs) have become an important component of penile rehabilitation protocols. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and patient satisfaction of a dedicated VED clinic. A voluntary telephone questionnaire was performed of all patients who attended a VED clinic to date in two university teaching hospitals. Patient demographics, histopathological characteristics and functional status (International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores) were obtained from a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database. Sixty-five men attended the dedicated VED clinic in the two university teaching hospitals. Forty-men (76.3%) men purchased a VED following the dedicated clinic. There was significant differences noted between the mean preoperative and the 3-month postoperative IIEF scores (22.08±3.16 vs 11.3±3.08, P=0.0001) and between the 3-month postoperative IIEF score and the post-VED use IIEF score (11.3±3.08 vs 16.74±2.62, P=0.0001). Despite VED use, there was a significant reduction in erectile function from presurgery status (22.08±3.16 vs 16.74±2.62, P=0.0001). All patients reported that the dedicated VED was helpful and would recommend it to other patients. Our study demonstrates that, despite a reduction in erectile function after RP, successful erections are attainable with a VED. There is potential and need for the development of a standard penile rehabilitation program and treatment of ED after RP internationally.

Penetrating stab injuries at a single urban unit: are we missing the point?

BACKGROUND: Penetrating trauma--the classical presentation of disorganised crime--can pose a challenge in their management due to their complexity and unpredictability. AIM: We examined the experience of one urban unit in the management of penetrating injuries to draw conclusions pertinent to other Irish centres. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of all penetrating injuries presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) of Connolly Hospital, Dublin between January 2009 and December 2012. Information was collected from the Hospital Inpatient Enquiry database, theatre logbooks and ED records. RESULTS: One hundred and four patients presented with penetrating injuries in the given period. Four mortalities were recorded. Abdominal injury was recorded in 22% of patients; 26% had multiple injuries not involving the abdomen; 11% had an isolated thoracic injury. Fifty-seven percent required surgery, of which 40% required emergency or early surgical intervention. Laparotomy and laparoscopy were required in 14 and 7%, respectively; 5% required thoracotomy of which two had penetrating cardiac injuries, both of whom survived. CONCLUSIONS: Although many patients with penetrating trauma can be safely managed conservatively, our study shows that over half required surgical intervention. These data highlight the need for a trauma team in each Irish centre receiving trauma with a clear need for general surgeons on emergency on-call rotas to be experienced in trauma management. There is an urgent need to centralise the management of trauma to a limited number of designated trauma centres where expertise is available by surgeons with a special interest in trauma management.