Does mammography hurt?

The documented incidence of pain associated with screening mammography varies from 1% to 62%. Some researchers suggest that pain may undermine compliance with screening mammography. As a part of a quality improvement project, we have surveyed women undergoing mammography in 2 centers in Jerusalem to identify the prevalence, severity, and duration of mammography-associated pain, demographic risk factors, and the degree that this may undermine compliance with breast cancer screening. A 23-item questionnaire was administered to 399 women (32% at the Shaare Zedek Medical Center [SZMC] and 68% at the Rachel Nash Comprehensive Breast Clinic [HALA]). Of the total, 77% of the women reported that the procedure was painful. Of those reporting pain, 60% described pain intensity as moderate or severe. In 67%, the pain resolved within 10 minutes. By univariate analysis, the only significant predictor for pain during mammography was cyclic breast pain (P = 0.053). No significant correlation was identified for age, breast size, pre-mammography counseling, and examination center (SZMC vs. HALA). The prevalence of pre-mammography counseling or explanation was low (51%). Despite that, 61% of the respondents expected that mammography would be painful. Indeed, most of those who anticipated pain reported that the actual severity was not greater than the anticipated severity. Even among women who reported pain of moderate or greater severity, less than 5% expressed preference to receive pre-emptive analgesia prior to their next mammogram. A substantial minority of women acknowledged that the experience of their mammography invoked reactions that may impend future compliance; 26% reported anxiety and 12% reported pain as factors that may interfere with ongoing compliance with regular mammographic screening. These data serve to emphasize the need for appropriate pre-test counseling and suggest a possible role for post-test debriefing to address those factors which may interfere with future test compliance.

[Endoscopic treatment of vesicoureteral reflux].

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic subureteral injection of tissue-augmenting substances, a 15-minute outpatient procedure has become an alternative to long-term antibiotic prophylaxis and surgical intervention in the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE using the words: vesicoureteral reflux, treatment, the long-term results of endoscopic treatment of reflux. We summarized the worldwide data regarding endoscopic treatment of VUR using various tissue-augmenting substances presently available. RESULTS: In terms of effectiveness and long-term successful results, polytetrafluoroethylene is still the most reliable injectable material for the endoscopic treatment of VUR. However, Dextranomer/hyaluronic acid copolymer (Deflux) is a new promising tissue augmenting substance which might be able to replace Teflon in the endoscopic treatment of reflux in terms of a similar to Teflon reflux cessation rate and exhibiting no evidence of migration. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic subureteral polytetrafluoroethylene injection is a simple and effective outpatient procedure for in the treatment of vesicoureteral reflux. No long-term morbidity was observed in our patients with small amounts of injectable polytetrafluoroethylene.

Pantoea agglomerans foreign body-induced septic arthritis.

A 4-year-old boy was admitted because of left knee arthritis. Synovial fluid culture yielded Pantoea agglomerans identified by 16S rDNA polymerase chain reaction. Ultrasound examination revealed a foreign body in the synovial fluid. The patient underwent arthroscopy with removal of a thorn. This article highlights the need to search for a foreign body in Pantoea septic arthritis.

The use of laparoscopy in intersex patients.

The management of intersex patients is a challenge. Although in the majority of patients the diagnosis may be made on the basis of cytogenetic and biochemical tests, there is a selective group of patients with difficulties in the establishment of final diagnosis and gender assignment. Since laparoscopy has been used in the management of impalpable gonads in the normal male population, it may be an alternative method for the diagnosis and surgical management of intersex patients. Thus we have evaluated our experience with laparoscopy in intersex population. Over the last 10 years (1995-2005) more than 80 intersex patients underwent surgical correction at our department. Out of those, 14 patients with a median age of 3 years (range 2-18 years) underwent laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic gonadectomy with subsequent estrogen replacement was performed following gonadal biopsy in five patients with androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS). In three patients with mixed gonadal dysgenesis (MGD) gonadal biopsy was performed. In two of those the initial diagnosis was changed to true hermaphroditism, and they underwent removal of ovotestis from one side and orchidopexy of the normal testis on the other. In one patient with MGD, timed gonadectomy following laparoscopic biopsy was performed due to malignant potential of the streak gonads. In two patients with persistent müllerian duct syndrome (PMDS), laparoscopic orchidopexy was performed following gonadal biopsy. Three patients with total gonadal dysgenesis (TGD) underwent laparoscopic gonadectomy and one with true hermaphroditism underwent laparoscopic biopsy followed by bilateral inguinal orchiectomy with preservation of the ovarian tissue. Our data show that the laparoscopic gonadal biopsy remains the only way to obtain morphologic gonadal structure and to establish a final diagnosis in doubtful cases. Magnification and easy access to the pelvic cavity allow removal of gonads or ductal structures with the advantages of minimally invasive procedure.