A retrospective cohort study assessing geometrical parameters related to visual deterioration in pituitary macroadenoma.

PURPOSE: We aim to identify specific parameters that will allow identification of those patients at greater risk of vision loss, specifically variables such as geometry, volume and size of the pituitary tumour. METHODOLOGY: Volume measurements were made with both manual (using the formula width × height × length × 0.5) and video size, sub-voxel interpolation using Brainlab software. The shape of the tumour was divided into four categories, ovoid, dumbbell, pyramidal and other. Chiasmal compression was divided into central and lateral compression and the chiasm location was classified based on pre/post and normal fixed chiasm in relation to the tuberculum sella. We used a visual impairment score ranging from (0-100), which was then further subdivided in to four grades: Grade I - 0-25 (mild); Grade II - 26-50 (moderate); Grade III - 51-75 (severe); Grade IV - 76-100 (subtotal or complete). RESULTS: Univariate analysis of variables related to vision loss found tumour volume, suprasellar growth and lateral chiasmal compression related to pre-operative vision loss. On multivariate regression analysis tumour volume and lateral chiasmal compression remained significant (p < 0.008). In relation to post-operative vision, univariate analysis indicated that variables such as giant macroadenoma, pre-operative visual impairment score and suprasellar growth were significant. Multivariate analysis showed pre-operative visual impairment and suprasellar growth as the only statistically significant variables. CONCLUSION: Our ROC analysis suggests tumours with suprasellar extension 16 mm (sensitivity 85 %, specificity 67 %) in sagittal plane are more likely to result in moderate to severe grade vision loss (VIS grade ≥ 2).

A comparison of faecal incontinence scoring systems.

AIM: Questionnaires designed to score the severity of faecal incontinence (FI) are widely used to provide an evaluation of symptoms across settings, studies and time. The Pelvic Floor Disorders Consortium have recommended the use of multiple questionnaires despite some overlap of questions. This study aimed to evaluate whether patient responses to these questionnaires are consistent. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients with FI who attended a dedicated pelvic floor unit between January 2018 and December 2019 and completed the Fecal Incontinence Severity Index, Cleveland Clinic Florida Incontinence Score and St Mark's Incontinence Score simultaneously. For each questionnaire the frequency of incontinence episodes to solid stool, liquid stool and gas was divided into five categories to allow direct comparison. Answers were deemed equivalent if the allocated response was identical, slightly different if the response was in an adjacent category or very different if the response differed to a greater extent. RESULTS: There were 193 patients who simultaneously completed all three FI questionnaires. There were statistically significant differences between the responses regarding frequency of solid stool, liquid stool and gas incontinence on all three questionnaires (p < 0.005). Across all domains, between 58.0% and 69.9% of responses were equivalent, 14.1%-34.0% of answers were slightly different and 8.0%-18.8% were very different. CONCLUSION: Even when completed at the same time, and by the same person, similar questions are answered differently a significant proportion of the time. The utility of using multiple questionnaires simultaneously in the clinical setting to assess FI symptoms should be questioned.