Mansour, Rania

Abstract Aim Rectal prolapse is a full‐thickness intussusception of the rectum beyond the anal canal. It is often mistaken for other anorectal pathologies, leading to inaccurate referrals to colorectal surgeons and inappropriate management. However, the frequency of misdiagnosis is not well characterized. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of rectal prolapse referrals to three tertiary medical centres. Methods This is a retrospective study of patients referred for rectal prolapse to colorectal surgeons at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix from 2020 to 2024. The primary outcome is the accuracy of rectal prolapse diagnosis. The secondary outcomes are factors that correlate with diagnostic accuracy. Results Rectal prolapse was inaccurately diagnosed in 38.7% (186/480) of patients. Among misdiagnosed patients, the correct diagnosis was haemorrhoids (68.0%, n = 134), pelvic floor dysfunction (24.3%, n = 48) and rectocele (18.7%, n = 37). A diagnosis of rectal cancer was found in 3 patients (1.5%). The most common presenting symptoms were protrusion (66.3%, n = 345) and bleeding (33.6%, n = 175). Among the referring physicians, only 50.5% ( n = 227) performed an anorectal examination. Overall, there was significant variability in diagnostic accuracy across different specialties, with the highest accuracy from colorectal practices (84.0%) and the lowest from urologists (50.0%). Internal medicine physicians had a lower diagnostic accuracy with anorectal examination than without, though it did not reach statistical significance (44.0% vs. 59.5%, p = 0.2). Conclusion Over one‐third of rectal prolapse referrals were incorrectly diagnosed. This study highlights the opportunity for further training of referring providers on anorectal pathologies to improve diagnostic accuracy which could reduce treatment delays and optimize clinical outcomes.

COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations have recently been implicated in causing myocarditis. Therefore, the primary aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical characteristics of patients with myocarditis following mRNA vaccination. The secondary aims were to report common imaging and laboratory findings, as well as treatment regimes, in these patients. A literature search was performed from December 2019 to June 2022. Eligible studies reported patients older than 18 years vaccinated with mRNA, a diagnosis of myocarditis, and subsequent outcomes. Pooled mean or proportion were analyzed using a random-effects model. Seventy-five unique studies (patient n = 188, 89.4% male, mean age 18–67 years) were included. Eighty-six patients had Moderna vaccines while one hundred and two patients had Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines. The most common presenting symptoms were chest pain (34.5%), fever (17.1%), myalgia (12.4%), and chills (12.1%). The most common radiologic findings were ST-related changes on an electrocardiogram (58.7%) and hypokinesia on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging or echocardiography (50.7%). Laboratory findings included elevated Troponin I levels (81.7%) and elevated C-reactive protein (71.5%). Seven patients were admitted to the intensive care unit. The most common treatment modality was non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (36.6%) followed by colchicine (28.5%). This meta-analysis presents novel evidence to suggest possible myocarditis post mRNA vaccination in certain individuals, especially young male patients. Clinical practice must therefore take appropriate pre-cautionary measures when administrating COVID-19 mRNA vaccinations.