1.Spontaneous splenic rupture secondary to metastatic malignant spindle cell tumour.
Muhammad Shafique SAJID ; Pippa HOWELL ; Catherine LEAVER ; Keith ROBERTS ; Parv SAINS
Singapore medical journal 2012;53(10):e208-10
We report a case of pathological splenic rupture as a manifestation of malignant metastatic spindle cell tumour. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case report of an atraumatic-pathological rupture of the spleen secondary to metastatic malignant spindle cell tumour. A 63-year-old man with a previous history of right upper limb amputation for an axillary malignant spindle cell tumour was admitted with an acute abdomen. Computed tomography showed a ruptured spleen. The patient subsequently underwent splenectomy. Histopathology confirmed the presence of malignant metastatic spindle cell tumour. Pathological splenic rupture is a rare manifestation of metastatic malignant spindle cell tumour. Background oncological history and thorough examination of the musculoskeletal system may provide important clues to make a prompt diagnosis.
Humans
;
Male
;
Middle Aged
;
Rupture, Spontaneous
;
diagnostic imaging
;
etiology
;
Sarcoma
;
complications
;
diagnostic imaging
;
pathology
;
Spleen
;
diagnostic imaging
;
pathology
;
Splenectomy
;
Splenic Neoplasms
;
complications
;
diagnostic imaging
;
pathology
;
Splenic Rupture
;
diagnostic imaging
;
etiology
;
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
2.Russell Body Lesions of the Colon: Case Report and Literature Review
W. Keith TAN ; Rachel SMITH ; Anthony GEORGE ; Anita GIBBONS ; Syed SHAUKAT ; Rizwan KASSAM ; Phil ROBERTS
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 2021;77(6):309-312
Russell bodies (RB) are rare manifestations within the lower gastrointestinal tract. To date, there are only three other reported cases of RB lesions of the colon; two were polyps, and the third was a case of a multifocal RB lesion of the gastrointestinal tract. This paper reports a case of a tubulovillous adenoma with RB of the sigmoid colon in a patient diagnosed incidentally as part of the UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. A thorough hematological investigation is required to exclude hematological malignancies because of its association with plasma cell neoplasm. These lesions should undergo clonality analysis to exclude the monoclonal proliferation of plasma cells. Ideally, a bone marrow aspirate and investigations for amyloidosis should be performed to exclude underlying hematological malignancies.
3.Russell Body Lesions of the Colon: Case Report and Literature Review
W. Keith TAN ; Rachel SMITH ; Anthony GEORGE ; Anita GIBBONS ; Syed SHAUKAT ; Rizwan KASSAM ; Phil ROBERTS
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology 2021;77(6):309-312
Russell bodies (RB) are rare manifestations within the lower gastrointestinal tract. To date, there are only three other reported cases of RB lesions of the colon; two were polyps, and the third was a case of a multifocal RB lesion of the gastrointestinal tract. This paper reports a case of a tubulovillous adenoma with RB of the sigmoid colon in a patient diagnosed incidentally as part of the UK National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. A thorough hematological investigation is required to exclude hematological malignancies because of its association with plasma cell neoplasm. These lesions should undergo clonality analysis to exclude the monoclonal proliferation of plasma cells. Ideally, a bone marrow aspirate and investigations for amyloidosis should be performed to exclude underlying hematological malignancies.
4.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
5.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
6.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.
7.Do some patients receive unnecessary parenteral nutrition after pancreatoduodenectomy?Results from an international multicentre study
Thomas B. RUSSELL ; Peter L. LABIB ; Paula MURPHY ; Fabio AUSANIA ; Elizabeth PANDO ; Keith J. ROBERTS ; Ambareen KAUSAR ; Vasileios K. MAVROEIDIS ; Gabriele MARANGONI ; Sarah C. THOMASSET ; Adam E. FRAMPTON ; Pavlos LYKOUDIS ; Manuel MAGLIONE ; Nassir ALHABOOB ; Hassaan BARI ; Andrew M. SMITH ; Duncan SPALDING ; Parthi SRINIVASAN ; Brian R. DAVIDSON ; Ricky H. BHOGAL ; Daniel CROAGH ; Ismael DOMINGUEZ ; Rohan THAKKAR ; Dhanny GOMEZ ; Michael A. SILVA ; Pierfrancesco LAPOLLA ; Andrea MINGOLI ; Alberto PORCU ; Nehal S. SHAH ; Zaed Z. R. HAMADY ; Bilal AL-SARRIEH ; Alejandro SERRABLO ; ; Somaiah AROORI
Annals of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery 2024;28(1):70-79
Background:
s/Aims: After pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), an early oral diet is recommended; however, the postoperative nutritional management of PD patients is known to be highly variable, with some centers still routinely providing parenteral nutrition (PN). Some patients who receive PN experience clinically significant complications, underscoring its judicious use. Using a large cohort, this study aimed to determine the proportion of PD patients who received postoperative nutritional support (NS), describe the nature of this support, and investigate whether receiving PN correlated with adverse perioperative outcomes.
Methods:
Data were extracted from the Recurrence After Whipple’s study, a retrospective multicenter study of PD outcomes.
Results:
In total, 1,323 patients (89%) had data on their postoperative NS status available. Of these, 45% received postoperative NS, which was “enteral only,” “parenteral only,” and “enteral and parenteral” in 44%, 35%, and 21% of cases, respectively. Body mass index < 18.5 kg/m2 (p = 0.03), absence of preoperative biliary stenting (p = 0.009), and serum albumin < 36 g/L (p = 0.009) all correlated with receiving postoperative NS. Among those who did not develop a serious postoperative complication, i.e., those who had a relatively uneventful recovery, 20% received PN.
Conclusions
A considerable number of patients who had an uneventful recovery received PN. PN is not without risk, and should be reserved for those who are unable to take an oral diet. PD patients should undergo pre- and postoperative assessment by nutrition professionals to ensure they are managed appropriately, and to optimize perioperative outcomes.