Correction to: Therapeutic Role of Water-Soluble Contrast Media in Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This published article omitted a reference to the paper.

Therapeutic Role of Water-Soluble Contrast Media in Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common post-operative cause of hospitalisation. Water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) has become a popular non-surgical approach to treatment. However, previous reviews have concluded with conflicting results. This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) re-evaluated the therapeutic value of WSCM in the management of ASBO. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was undertaken to identify RCTs from January 2000 to November 2018. The primary outcomes of length of stay and secondary outcomes of time to resolution, need for surgery, and mortality were extracted from the included studies. Quantitative pooling of the data was based on the random effects model. RESULTS: Eight hundred and seventy-nine patients from the nine studies were included in the analysis. The administration of oral WSCM reduced the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference - 0.15 days, P < 0.0001). However, WSCM does not reduce the need for surgery (relative risk 0.84, P < 0.009) and makes no difference to mortality rate (RR 0.99, P < 1.000). The definition of time to resolution of ASBO differed between the studies, ranging from time to passing flatus, to cessation of abdominal pain, and time to initiating oral intake. The significant differences in definition precluded meaningful quantitative pooling of this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis evaluating the therapeutic value of WSCM has shown that it does not reduce the need for operative management in ASBO or impact mortality rates. It shortens hospital stay by 0.15 days (3.6 h) which is not clinically significant.

Isolated appendiceal endometriosis resulting in intussusception.

An inverted (intussuscepted) appendix is a rare finding, often mistaken for a polyp as it presents with vague symptoms. This can result in misdiagnosis and inappropriate management. Diagnosis is usually made through surgery. Rarely, endometriosis has been found as the cause of the intussusception. A 42-year-old woman presented with frequent loose stools over 2 years, an elevated calprotectin over 400 µg/g faeces (normal <110) and a serum C-reactive protein of 40 mg/l (normal <5 mg/l). Endoscopy showed an inverted appendix. Histopathology results showed inflammation and ulceration. Laparoscopic appendicectomy was performed successfully, and endometriosis was found on the inverted appendix. This is the first case reported of an inverted appendix containing endometriosis, in which the intussusception of the appendix has been diagnosed on endoscopy. This case highlights how endometriosis can involve just the appendix, without any involvement of reproductive organs. We suggest considering inverted appendix as a differential diagnosis when investigating caecal lesions.

The prognostic value of transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy in patients over 70 years old with a prostate specific Antigen (PSA) level ≤ 15 ng/ml and normal digital rectal examination: a 10-year prospective follow-up study of 427 consecutive patients.

INTRODUCTION: As a urologist, it is common to review a patient above the age of 70 being referred to a prostate assessments clinic with an elevated PSA. We evaluate the prognosis of these patients clinically as there is no international consensus on the exact PSA cutoff level or a single international guideline as to when these patients should be offered a prostate biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: On receiving ethic committee approval, we recruited 427 consecutive patients aged 70 years and above referred with a PSA of ≥ 4 ng/ml, from January 1996 to December 2000, into our study. All patients were assessed, examined with a digital rectal examination (DRE) of the prostate, and a subsequent prostate biopsy. We followed up on their histologic diagnosis for up to 10 years and analyzed their outcome. The main outcome measures were disease-free survival and overall survival, stratified according to the PSA level (≤ 15 vs. >15 ng/ml) and DRE findings (normal vs. sbnormal). RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in the overall survival (P value < 0.011) and disease specific survival (P value < 0.0001) of cancer patients with a PSA was >15 ng/ml and an abnormal DRE. However, in patients with a PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml and normal DRE, the incidence of cancer was low and they had no disease-specific or overall survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS: A policy of deferring prostate biopsy in patients with a PSA ≤ 15 ng/ml and normal DRE (Group A) would significantly decrease the need of unnecessary prostate biopsies. Within this group, patients did not have any survival advantage compared with those without cancer. We conclude that up to 20% of the prostate biopsies performed in this age group could have been avoided.