Repair of lower abdominal incisional hernia is always a surgical challenge. TAPE technique has been described for the repair of supra-pubic midline incisional hernia with satisfactory outcome. Its indication can be extended for treatment of non-midline lower abdominal hernia. Peritoneal incision is created just below the hernia defect with pre-peritoneal dissection to expose supra-pubic preperitoneal space with Cooper's ligament exposed. Non-adhesive mesh then placed over preperitoneal space and partially intra-peritoneally, and cover the whole extra-peritoneal space prepared to ensure enough overlapping. Mesh is fixed by tackers for intra-peritoneal part, most inferior fixation points were at peritoneal incision line. Extra-peritoneal part of meshes is fixed at the safety zone and covered up by the peritoneal flap to avoid mesh migration. Fixation of the meshes at the lateral aspects were facilitated by the peritoneal flap and subsequent fibrosis and adhesion to the extra-peritoneal structures in cases of lateral lower abdominal hernia. Repair of midline and lateral lower abdominal incisional hernia with this novel modified technique with prosthetic mesh is safe and effective. A larger case series and longer follow-up is required for validation of this technique.
Fibrosis ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hernia ; Hernia, Abdominal ; Hernia, Ventral* ; Incisional Hernia ; Ligaments

BACKGROUNDA prior study showed significant antibiotic resistance to quinolone in our population. In this study we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of a single versus a combined prophylactic antibiotic regimen before transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy (TRUGPB).

METHODSA prospective randomized study was conducted at a university hospital. Patients undergoing TRUGPB were randomized into an amoxicillin-clavulanate alone (1 mg; one dose before and two doses after biopsy) or an amoxicillin-clavulanate + ciprofloxacin group (250 mg; one dose before and two doses after biopsy). Patients were surveyed for infection symptoms by phone on days 3 and 30 after TRUGPB. We defined an infective complication as the occurrence of symptoms including fever, chills or rigor within 30 days after prostate biopsy, requiring medical treatment or hospitalization, aided by a territory-wide electronic medical record system.

RESULTSBetween November 2007 and July 2009, 367 patients were randomized to either amoxicillin-clavulanate alone or amoxicillin-clavulanate + ciprofloxacin group. The infection rates after TRUGPB were 3.91% in the former group (7 out of 179 patients) versus 0.53% (1 out of 188 patients) in the latter. Sixty-three percent (5/8) of patients with infective complications needed hospitalization. There was no intensive care unit admission or mortality during the study period.

CONCLUSIONSCombining prophylactic antibiotics with amoxicillin-clavulanate + ciprofloxacin significantly reduced the incidence of infective complications after TRUGPB. We recommended a combination regimen, especially in centre with high incidence of post-TRUGPB infection.

Amoxicillin ; therapeutic use ; Anti-Bacterial Agents ; therapeutic use ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis ; methods ; Biopsy, Needle ; adverse effects ; methods ; Ciprofloxacin ; therapeutic use ; Clavulanic Acid ; therapeutic use ; Humans ; Male ; Prostate ; diagnostic imaging ; pathology ; surgery ; Rectum ; Ultrasonography

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We determined the rates of metachronous colorectal neoplasm in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients after resection for right (R)-sided or left (L)-sided cancer. METHODS: Consecutive CRC patients who had undergone surgical resection for curative intent in our hospital between 2001 and 2004 were identified. R-sided colonic cancers refer to cancer proximal to splenic flexure whereas L-sided cancers include rectal cancers. Patients were included only if they had a clearing colonoscopy performed either before or within 6 months after the operation. Findings of surveillance colonoscopy performed up to 5 years after colonic resection were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Eight hundred and sixty-three CRC patients underwent curative surgical resection during the study period. Three hundred and twenty-seven patients (107 R-sided and 220 L-sided) fulfilled the inclusion criteria and had at least 1 postoperative surveillance colonoscopy performed. The proportion of patients who had polyp and adenoma on surveillance colonoscopy was significantly higher among patients with L-sided than R-sided cancers (polyps: 30.9% vs. 19.6%, P=0.03; adenomas: 25.5% vs. 13.1%, P=0.01). The mean number of adenoma per patient on surveillance colonoscopy was also higher for patients with L-sided than R-sided tumors (0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37–0.68 vs. 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08–0.35; P < 0.01). Multivariate analysis showed that L-sided cancers, age, male gender and longer follow-up were independent predictors of adenoma detection on surveillance colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with Lsided cancer had a higher rate of metachronous polyps and adenoma than those with R-sided cancer on surveillance colonoscopy.
Adenoma* ; Colon* ; Colon, Transverse ; Colonic Neoplasms* ; Colonoscopy ; Colorectal Neoplasms ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Multivariate Analysis ; Polyps ; Rectal Neoplasms ; Recurrence

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.