Citations

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a less invasive and potentially high efficacious procedure for the treatment of high‐risk patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Appropriate patient selection for TAVI is a key component to ultimate clinical success. Herein, we describe a patient with left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction that became apparent only following relief of aortic stenosis with TAVI. This report highlights the dynamic nature of LVOT obstruction, which was successfully treated in our patient with catheter‐based alcohol septal ablation. The potential to unmask dynamic LVOT obstruction with TAVI should be an important consideration in patient selection for the procedure, and the postoperative assessment of these patients. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Endovascular reconstruction has become the standard treatment of chronic obstruction of large veins. Stenting is done with increasing frequency to treat iliac venous obstructions, with or without associated inferior vena caval or femoral vein occlusions. Open reconstruction with venous bypass is performed today in patients who fail attempts at venous stenting or who are not candidates for endovascular reconstructions. Patients with primary or secondary malignancies invading the vena cava undergo open caval reconstruction at the time of tumour excision. Open venous reconstructions are still preferred in patients with large vein injuries due to blunt or penetrating trauma or in those who suffer iatrogenic venous injuries. Hybrid reconstruction can be performed with endophlebectomy of the common femoral or femoral veins combined with iliofemoral stenting.

Recently published evidence-based guidelines of the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) and the American Venous Forum (AVF) include recommendations for evaluation, classification, outcome assessment and therapy of patients with varicose veins and more advanced chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). The need for such guidelines has been evident since imaging techniques and minimally invasive technologies have progressed by leaps and bounds and radiofrequency ablation, laser and sclerotherapy have largely replaced classical open surgery of saphenous stripping. This report reviews the most important guidelines recommended by the SVS/AVF Venous Guideline Committee. It is obvious, however, that some of the technology that is recommended in North America is either not available or not affordable in some parts of the world for patients with varicose veins and CVI. The readers are urged therefore to also consult the guidelines of their national societies, recent publications of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and the Venous Forum of the Royal Society of Medicine. Venous specialists should also keep in mind that scientific evidence should always be combined with the physician's clinical experience and the patient's preference when the best treatment is selected for an individual patient.

ObjectiveTo determine whether patient factors (eg, indication for initial surgery, medical comorbidity, or age) are associated with adenoid regrowth and subsequent need for revision adenoidectomy and whether surgical factors (eg, surgical technique or level of surgeon’s training) are associated with adenoid regrowth and subsequent need for revision adenoidectomy.Study DesignHistorical cohort study.SettingTertiary care academic medical center.Subjects and MethodsChildren (≤18 years) who underwent adenoidectomy or adenotonsillectomy between 1980 and May 2009 were identified. Medical and surgical records were reviewed for sex, age at surgery, indication for surgery, training level of surgeon, surgical technique, and history of allergies, asthma, or gastroesophageal reflux disease.ResultsOf 8245 surgical cases (53.8% male), 163 were revision adenoidectomies. Age at initial adenoidectomy was a significant factor for revision adenoidectomy, with younger ages associated with higher increased risk. Indication for adenoidectomy was also a significant risk factor; adjusted for age, patients with ear rather than infectious indications were about 10 times more likely to require revision. A diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease was a significant risk factor (hazard ratio, 2.23; P =. 002).ConclusionSeveral risk factors are associated with revision adenoidectomy: young age at initial procedure, indication for adenoidectomy, and diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Surgical technique, level of experience of the initial surgeon, and diagnosis of asthma or allergies were not significant risk factors for revision adenoidectomy.

Abstract Background Proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis (IPAA) has been developed and refined since its introduction in the late 1970s. Nonetheless, it is a procedure associated with significant morbidity. The aim of this review was to provide a structured approach to the challenges that surgeons and physicians encounter in the management of intraoperative, postoperative and reoperative problems associated with ileoanal pouches. Methods The review was based on relevant studies identified from an electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed databases from 1975 to April 2011. There were no language or publication year restrictions. Original references in published articles were reviewed. Results Although the majority of patients experience long-term success with an ileoanal pouch, significant morbidity surrounds IPAA. Surgical intervention is often critical to achieve optimal control of the situation. Conclusion A structured management plan will minimize the adverse consequences of the problems associated with pouches.

It is widely accepted that traditional models of clinical investigation are becoming unsustainable in oncology and that trials must become more efficient in matching effective treatments to the patients most likely to benefit. In 2008, gastrointestinal oncologists from many countries began a collaboration to improve the design and conduct of clinical trials in their field, through the auspices of a French/U.S. charitable foundation, ARCAD. Whether this model of academic collaboration will be judged a success will depend on the quality of its scientific output during the next few years and whether this output, alongside that of other scientists, groups, and institutions, ultimately leads to more efficient trials and improved treatment options for patients.