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.

Purpose: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is becoming the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, surgery is deferred for months after completion, which may lead to fibrosis and increased surgical difficulty. The aim of this study was to assess whether TNT (TNT-RAPIDO) is associated with increased difficulty of total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) and upfront surgery. Methods: Twelve laparoscopic videos of low anterior resection with TME for rectal cancer were prospectively collected from January 2020 to October 2021, with 4 videos in each arm. Seven colorectal surgeons assessed the videos independently, graded the difficulty of TME using a visual analog scale and attempted to identify which category the videos belonged to. Results: The median age was 67 years, and 10 patients were male. The median interval to surgery from radiotherapy was 13 weeks in the LCRT group and 24 weeks in the TNT-RAPIDO group. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale for difficulty in TME between the 3 groups (LCRT, 3.2; TNT-RAPIDO, 4.6; upfront, 4.1; P=0.12). A subgroup analysis showed similar difficulty between groups (LCRT 3.2 vs. TNT-RAPIDO 4.6, P=0.05; TNT-RAPIDO 4.6 vs. upfront 4.1, P=0.54). During video assessments, surgeons correctly identified the prior treatment modality in 42% of the cases. TNT-RAPIDO videos had the highest recognition rate (71%), significantly outperforming both LCRT (29%) and upfront surgery (25%, P=0.01). Conclusion TNT does not appear to increase the surgical difficulty of TME.

Hemorrhoids/surgery* ; Humans ; Lasers ; Ligation

OBJECTIVE: In traditional Chinese medicine, the herbal pair, Radix Achyranthis Bidentatae (RAB) and Eucommiae Cortex (EC), is widely used to treat osteoporosis. Herein, we determined whether this herbal pair can be used to ameliorate glucocorticoid (GC)-induced osteoporosis (GIOP) and find its optimal dosage in zebrafish. METHODS: The characteristics of the aqueous extract of RAB and EC were separately characterized using high-performance liquid chromatography. Osteoporosis was induced in 5-day post-fertilization zebrafish larvae by exposing them to 10 μmol/L dexamethasone (Dex) for 96 h. Seven combinations of different ratios of RAB and EC were co-administered. Treatment efficacy was determined by calculating zebrafish vertebral area and sum brightness, via alizarin red staining, and by detecting alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity. Multiple regression analysis was conducted to test the optimal dosage ratio. RESULTS: According to the Chinese Pharmacopoeia (2015), β-ecdysone (β-Ecd) is a major bioactive marker in RAB extract, while pinoresinol diglucoside (PDG) is the major marker in EC extract. Both of β-Ecd and PDG content values aligned with the Chinese Pharmacopoeia standards. Treatment with 10 μmol/L Dex reduced zebrafish vertebral area, sum brightness, and ALP activity, but RAB and EC attenuated these effects. Combining 50 µg/mL RAB and 50 µg/mL EC was optimal for preventing GIOP in zebrafish. Reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to evaluate the mRNA expression of osteogenesis-related genes. A treatment of 10 μmol/L Dex decreased runt-related transcription factor 2 (Runx2), osteogenic protein-1 (OP-1), bone γ-carboxyglutamic acid-containing protein (BGLAP), and β-catenin levels. This effect was counteracted by RAB and EC co-treatment (P < 0.05). Additionally, the effect of using the two herbal extracts together was better than single-herb treatments separately. These results demonstrated that RAB and EC preserve osteoblast function in the presence of GC. The best mass ratio was 1:1. CONCLUSION RAB and EC herbal pair could ameliorate GC-induced effects in zebrafish, with 1:1 as the optimal dosage ratio.
Animals ; Glucocorticoids ; Medicine, Chinese Traditional ; Osteogenesis ; Osteoporosis/prevention & control* ; Zebrafish

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to examine the factors associated with self-reported hearing disability and early reduction in disability after first-time hearing aid (HA) fitting in Singapore. METHODS: Retrospective record review of 1,068 subjects issued with HAs at a tertiary hospital from 2001 to 2013. RESULTS: Subjects reporting ≥5 disabilities reduced from 90% to 24% after HA fitting. 'Difficulty hearing in noise' was the commonest disability before and after HA fitting, while 'needs to increase volume of TV/radio' was the disability with most improvement after fitting. In multivariable models, having worse pure tone audiometry (PTA) thresholds of the better hearing ear and being ethnically Chinese were associated with subjects reporting more hearing disabilities. A higher proportion of subjects reported a reduction rather than an absence of disability after HA fitting. In multivariable models, daily HA usage for ≥4 hours, sensorineural hearing loss (HL) and worse PTA thresholds of the better hearing ear were associated with reduction in more disabilities after HA fitting. CONCLUSION Hearing disability is high among first-time HA users in Singapore. Ethnicity and PTA thresholds were associated with self-reported hearing disability. After HA fitting, higher daily HA usage, sensorineural HL, and worse PTA thresholds of the better hearing ear were associated with early reduction in disability. Patient counselling on the benefits of HL rehabilitation could focus on hearing disability rather than PTA thresholds. The management of patients' expectations could focus on reducing rather than eliminating disability.