Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Colorectal Dis ; 25(11): 2155-2159, 2023 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37789561

RESUMEN

AIM: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to reduce variations in rectal cancer care, standardize clinical practice and encourage multidisciplinary approaches. The aim of this study was to analyse if accreditation achieved a higher quality of care at one hospital. METHOD: The University of California Davis Medical Center was accredited in 2019. A retrospective review of rectal adenocarcinoma patients was performed between the years 2013 and 2018. Patients presenting from 2013 to 2015 were discussed at a gastrointestinal tumour board while patients in 2018 had an accredited rectal cancer tumour board. Patients from 2016 to 2017 were excluded as the programme was still developing. Compliance to the NAPRC standards was compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were evaluated, 88 (68%) in the prerectal tumour board cohort and 42 (32%) in the rectal tumour board cohort. The prerectal tumour board cohort often failed to meet attendance standards. All patients in the rectal tumour board cohort met all criteria. Similarly, clinical service compliance improved in the rectal tumour board cohort for 13 metrics, 10 of which were statistically significant. Although a high proportion of patients in both groups experienced quality surgery, i.e. complete total mesorectal excision and negative margins, the lack of complete pathological reporting in the prerectal tumour board cohort limited analysis. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary rectal cancer tumour boards are associated with improved compliance with recommended care by the NAPRC. Patients discussed at a rectal cancer tumour board were more likely to receive appropriate staging, coordinated care and have better clinical documentation.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias del Recto , Humanos , Neoplasias del Recto/cirugía , Neoplasias del Recto/patología , Recto/cirugía , Estudios Retrospectivos , Benchmarking , Acreditación , Estadificación de Neoplasias
2.
JOP ; 16(2): 125-35, 2015 Mar 20.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25791545

RESUMEN

The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of the art of the management of necrotizing pancreatitis, and to clarify some confusing points regarding the terminology and diagnosis of necrotizing pancreatitis, as these points are essential for management decisions and communication between providers and within the literature. Acute pancreatitis varies widely in its clinical presentation. Despite the publication of the Atlanta guidelines, misuse of pancreatitis terminology continues in the literature and in clinical practice, especially regarding the local complications associated with severe acute pancreatitis. Necrotizing pancreatitis is a manifestation of severe acute pancreatitis associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Diagnosis is aided by pancreas-protocol computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, ideally 72 h after onset of symptoms to achieve the most accurate characterization of pancreatic necrosis. The extent of necrosis correlates well with the incidence of infected necrosis, organ failure, need for debridement, and morbidity and mortality. Having established the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis, goals of appropriately aggressive resuscitation should be established and adhered to in a multidisciplinary approach, ideally at a high-volume pancreatic center. The role of antibiotics is determined by the presence of infected necrosis. Early enteral feeds improve outcomes compared with parenteral nutrition. Pancreatic necrosis is associated with a multitude of complications which can lead to long-term morbidity or mortality. Interventional therapy should be guided by available resources and the principle of a minimally invasive approach. When open debridement is necessary, it should be delayed at least 3-6 weeks to allow demarcation of necrotic from viable tissue.

3.
Clin Case Rep ; 7(1): 104-106, 2019 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30656019

RESUMEN

Branding is a type of scarification, a body modification that permanently transforms the skin by causing a visible scar. For centuries, it has been used on the skin of animals and slaves as well as criminals to convey ownership and also as a proof of guilt. More recently (in the 20th and 21st centuries), branding has become a symbol of personal identity, rites of passage, spiritual beliefs, and body decoration in some particular microcultures. Different means have been classically used to perform the desired branding designs including electrocautery, laser, chemicals, freezing, or a heated metal stencil. Solar branding is a new concept that involves using a focusing lens and a light source, usually the sunlight, to induce thermal injury. It is an emerging technique to perform body modifications and tattooing. As with other types of branding, solar branding also has its complications which may require surgical excision and grafting. We present a case of an acute skin infection following solar branding body modification, which to our knowledge is the first case reported in the literature.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA