'It's just a mucocele': a case report of a massive appendiceal mucocele presenting as a left upper quadrant mass.

Tumours of the appendix are very rare tumours that can and often present with a mucocele. This is a case report highlighting the associated pathology of appendix tumours and the management of a large mucocele. Specifically, how a right hemicolectomy is very rarely needed in these cases regardless of size and local anatomical relationships and some important considerations for the practicing surgeon in the non-tertiary centre that encounters a case like this.

Robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy: technical considerations and case vignette.

When working with patients who have locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) the ability to undertake minimally invasive procedures becomes more challenging but no less important for patient outcomes. We performed a minimally invasive approach to surgery for LARC invading the posterior vagina and sacrum. The patient was a 75-year-old lady who presented with a locally advanced rectal tumour staged T4N2 with invasion into the posterior wall of the vagina and coccyx/distal sacrum. We introduce a robotic abdominoperineal resection, posterior vaginectomy and abdomino-lithotomy sacrectomy using a purely perineal approach with no robotic adjuncts or intracorporal techniques. Final histology showed moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma invading the vagina and sacrum, ypT4b N0 TRG2 R0 and the patient entered surgical follow-up with no immediate intra- or postoperative complications. A literature review shows the need for more minimally invasive techniques when relating to major pelvic surgery and the benefits of a purely perineal approach include less expensive resource use, fewer training requirements and the ability to utilise this technique in centres that are not robotically equipped.

Cost effectiveness of using Faecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) as an initial diagnostic investigation for patients with lower gastrointestinal symptoms suggestive of malignancy.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increase in the numbers of patients presenting to primary care with suspected colorectal malignancy and subsequently an increase in demand for endoscopy. This study aims to forecast the cost of faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) compared to conventional diagnostic tests as a primary investigation for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal malignancy. METHODS: Retrospectively, 1950 patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal malignancy who were referred through primary care and underwent investigations through standard endoscopic evaluation were included. These patients were used to forecast the cost of faecal immunochemical testing creating theoretical data for sensitivity and specificity. Outcome measures included: the number of investigations under current protocol; cost of current investigations; number of predicted false negatives and false positives and positive/negative predictive values using current sensitivity data for FIT; the cost forecast of using FIT as the primary investigation for colorectal malignancy. RESULTS: Median age was 65 (IQR 47-82) with 43.7% male and 56.3% female. A total of 1950 investigations were carried out with a diagnostic yield of 26 cancers (18 colon, 8 rectal), 138 polyps and 29 high risk adenomas (HGD ± > 10 mm). In total, £713,948 was spent on the investigations. The commonest investigation was colonoscopy totalling £533,169. The total cost per cancer diagnosis was £27,459. Sensitivity (92.1% CI 86.9-95.3) and specificity (85.8% CI 78.3-90.1) for FIT in colorectal cancer was taken from NICE and was costed via the manufacturer(s). The projected total cost of FIT for the same population using a ≥ 4 µg haemoglobin cut off was £415,680 (£15,554 per cancer). The total cost of high-risk polyps using ≥ 4 µg cut off was £404,427 (sensitivity 71.2% CI 60.5-87.2, specificity 79.8%CI 76.1-83.7) or £13,945 per polyp. CONCLUSIONS: FIT is a cheaper and effective alternative test with the potential to replace current expensive methods. The forecast is based on the limited data available for sensitivity/specificity in the current literature. FIT has now been commenced for symptomatic patients in the UK and therefore sensitivity may change in the future.

Suture rectopexy versus ventral mesh rectopexy for complete full-thickness rectal prolapse and intussusception: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare recurrence rates of rectal prolapse following ventral mesh rectopexy (VMR) and suture rectopexy (SR). METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting on the recurrence rates of complete rectal prolapse (CRP) or intussusception (IS) after SR and VMR. Results were pooled and procedures compared; a subgroup analysis was performed comparing patients with CRP and IS who underwent VMR using biological versus synthetic meshes. A meta-analysis of studies comparing SR and VMR was undertaken. The Methodological Items for Non-Randomized Studies score, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the Cochrane Collaboration tool were used to assess the quality of studies. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies with 976 patients were included in the SR group and 31 studies with 1605 patients in the VMR group; among these studies, five were eligible for meta-analysis. Overall, in patients with CRP, the recurrence rate was 8.6 per cent after SR and 3.7 per cent after VMR (P < 0.001). However, in patients with IS treated using VMR, the recurrence rate was 9.7 per cent. Recurrence rates after VMR did not differ with use of biological or synthetic mesh in patients treated for CRP (4.1 versus 3.6 per cent; P = 0.789) and or IS (11.4 versus 11.0 per cent; P = 0.902). Results from the meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity, and the difference in recurrence rates between SR and VMR groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Although the systematic review showed a higher recurrence rate after SR than VMR for treatment of CRP, this result was not confirmed by meta-analysis. Therefore, robust RCTs comparing SR and biological VMR are required.