Pathological lesions in and around a joint can arise from underlying dermis, subcutis, deep muscle, bone or synovium. Clinical presentation can include joint pain, joint swelling, palpable masses and mechanical restriction. Whilst giant cell tumour of tendon sheath, pigmented villonodular synovitis, synovial chondromatosis, lipoma arborescens, juxta articular myxomas and inflammatory arthritis are the better-known conditions of the joint. Intra-articular nodular fasciitis, on the other hand, is less well recognized both clinically and radiologically. It is rarely seen in routine practice and is only described in case reports in the literature. Due to the non-specific clinical and radiological findings as well as the unfamiliarity with the entity, the diagnosis of intra-articular nodular fasciitis is usually clinched only after histological examination. We present a case of intra-articular nodular fasciitis arising in the knee joint which was not suspected clinically or radiologically
Knee Joint

Purpose: Low-profile, self-expandable stents have broadened therapeutic options available for definitive treatment of intracranial aneurysms. The novel Low-Profile Visualized Intraluminal Support (LVIS) EVO stent extends upon the success of its predecessor, the LVIS Jr stent, aiming to enable higher visibility and greater opening ability within a self-expandable and fully retrievable microstent system. In this study, we aim to report the early safety and feasibility experience with the LVIS EVO stent. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted on patients who had intracranial aneurysms treated with the LVIS EVO stent across 3 Australian neurovascular centers between February 2020 and September 2020. Short-term technical and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 22 LVIS EVO stents were successfully implanted to treat 15 aneurysms (3 ruptured, 12 unruptured) in 15 patients. Aneurysms ranged from 2 mm to 35 mm in dome height. The LVIS EVO stent was used for stent-assisted coiling in 11 patients and flow diversion in 4 patients. There were no device-related procedural complications. There were 2 cases of peri-procedural symptomatic thromboembolic complications and no procedure-related mortality. At early radiological follow up, 10 patients had complete occlusion, 4 patients had small neck remnants, and 1 patient who was managed with flow diversion had a residual aneurysm. Conclusion Early experience with the LVIS EVO stent demonstrated safety and feasibility for stent-assisted coiling as well as flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms. In this heterogeneous cohort, including ruptured, complex, and large aneurysms, all cases were technically successful.

Purpose: Low-profile, self-expandable stents have broadened therapeutic options available for definitive treatment of intracranial aneurysms. The novel Low-Profile Visualized Intraluminal Support (LVIS) EVO stent extends upon the success of its predecessor, the LVIS Jr stent, aiming to enable higher visibility and greater opening ability within a self-expandable and fully retrievable microstent system. In this study, we aim to report the early safety and feasibility experience with the LVIS EVO stent. Materials and Methods: A multicenter, retrospective, observational study was conducted on patients who had intracranial aneurysms treated with the LVIS EVO stent across 3 Australian neurovascular centers between February 2020 and September 2020. Short-term technical and clinical outcomes were evaluated. Results: A total of 22 LVIS EVO stents were successfully implanted to treat 15 aneurysms (3 ruptured, 12 unruptured) in 15 patients. Aneurysms ranged from 2 mm to 35 mm in dome height. The LVIS EVO stent was used for stent-assisted coiling in 11 patients and flow diversion in 4 patients. There were no device-related procedural complications. There were 2 cases of peri-procedural symptomatic thromboembolic complications and no procedure-related mortality. At early radiological follow up, 10 patients had complete occlusion, 4 patients had small neck remnants, and 1 patient who was managed with flow diversion had a residual aneurysm. Conclusion Early experience with the LVIS EVO stent demonstrated safety and feasibility for stent-assisted coiling as well as flow diversion for intracranial aneurysms. In this heterogeneous cohort, including ruptured, complex, and large aneurysms, all cases were technically successful.

Purpose: Carotid artery stenting (CAS) is an established treatment for symptomatic carotid artery stenosis as an alternative to carotid endarterectomy. A variety of techniques and devices have been devised to minimise periprocedural stroke risk using either proximal or distal embolic protection. This study presents a method of embolic protection during CAS–the CaRotid Artery Filtering Technique (CRAFT). Materials and Methods: The CRAFT technique employs aspects of both proximal and distal embolic protection. The CASPER RX stent (MicroVention, Tustin, CA, USA), which is a double-layered, closed-cell, micromesh nitinol stent, is deployed across the carotid artery stenosis with the assistance of a FlowGate balloon guide catheter (Stryker Neurovascular, Fremont, CA, USA). The partially deployed stent acts as a distal filter while the balloon guide is deflated midway during stent deployment to prevent distal plaque embolisation, followed by completion of stent deployment and angioplasty. Results: A total of 94 patients underwent CAS using the CRAFT technique between June 2016 and March 2021. Successful stent deployment was achieved in all patients. Preliminary results demonstrated acute stent occlusion in 6 patients (6.4%) and distal embolic stroke in 5 patients (5.3%). The median procedural fluoroscopy time was 34 minutes with an interquartile range of 22 to 55 minutes. Conclusion The CRAFT technique of CAS presented by this study can be applied in the treatment of symptomatic carotid artery stenosis in both emergency and elective procedure settings with a high technical success and low distal embolic stroke risk.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.