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.

Sarcopenia, which is characterized by progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and strength, has been well described to be associated with numerous poor postoperative outcomes, such as increased perioperative mortality, postoperative sepsis, prolonged length of stay, increased cost of care, decreased functional outcome, and poorer oncological outcomes in cancer surgery. Multimodal prehabilitation, as a concept that involves boosting and optimizing the preoperative condition of a patient prior to the upcoming stressors of a surgical procedure, has the purported benefits of reversing the effects of sarcopenia, shortening hospitalization, improving the rate of return to bowel activity, reducing the costs of hospitalization, and improving quality of life. This review aims to present the current literature surrounding the concept of sarcopenia, its implications pertaining to colorectal cancer and surgery, a summary of studied multimodal prehabilitation interventions, and potential future advances in the management of sarcopenia.

INTRODUCTIONThe World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire is a 26-item questionnaire that evaluates 4 domains of quality of life (QoL), namely Physical, Psychological, Social Relationships and Environment. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF among Singapore residents aged 21 and above.

MATERIALS AND METHODSWe recruited participants from the general population by using multistage cluster sampling and participants from 2 hospitals by using convenience sampling. Participants completed either English, Chinese or Malay versions of the WHOQOL-BREF and the EuroQoL 5 Dimension 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaires. Confirmatory factor analysis, known-group validity, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) were performed.

RESULTSData from 1316 participants were analysed (Chinese: 46.9%, Malay: 41.0% and Indian: 11.7%; 57.5% mean, mean standard deviation [SD, range] age: 51.9 [15.68, 24 to 90] years); 154 participants took part in the retest in various languages (English: 60, Chinese: 49 and Malay: 45). Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) was 0.919, 0.913 and 0.909 for the English, Chinese and Malay versions, respectively. Cronbach's alpha exceeded 0.7 and ICC exceeded 0.4 for all domains in all language versions.

CONCLUSIONThe WHOQOL-BREF is valid and reliable for assessing QoL in Singapore. Model fit is reasonable with room for improvement.

Malignant transformation from normal colonic mucosa to carcinomas may be accelerated by genetic loss or inactivation of genes of the DNA mismatch repair system. The aim of the study was to determine the local incidence and pattern of immunohistochemical expression of mismatch repair proteins namely: hMLH1, hMSH2 and hMSH6 in a series of colorectal carcinomas (CRCs) and correlate this to their clinical and pathological features. Forty-three out of 298 cases of CRCs (14.4%) showed abnormal staining pattern for mismatch repair proteins with a majority (65.1%) showing single hMLH1 loss. Tumours with mismatch repair defect (MMR-d) were frequently found at the right side of colon (p<0.001), poorly differentiated carcinomas (p<0.001), produced more mucin (p=0.007), exophytic growth (p=0.007) and were bigger (p=0.002) than tumours with no mismatch repair defect. Immunohistochemical stains for mismatch repair proteins could be done in local laboratories on these selected cases before referring for the expensive molecular test.

Breast hamartoma is an uncommon poorly recognised benign breast neoplasm. Hamartoma displaying marked smooth muscle components known as myoid hamartoma of the breast is a much rarer entity. We present a case of myoid hamartoma of breast with chondroid differentiation in a 46-year-old woman. The painless breast lump was circumscribed and mammography showed a well-encapsulated large, dense mass with no calcification. Core needle biopsy was reported as fibroadenoma. The lesion was excised. Microscopically, it composed of many groups of mammary glandular components with dense fibrous stroma, adipose tissue and marked groups of smooth muscle fibres. Foci of chondroid differentiation were noted in the lesion. The smooth muscle cells showed strong and diffuse immunoreactivity for vimentin, myogloblin, alpha-smooth muscle actin, desmin and CD34 and failed to express pan-cytokeratin or S100 protein. The ducts lined by epithelial cells were reactive to pan-cytokeratin while the myoepithelial cells were reactive to S100 protein. The various immuno-histochemical staining as well as the cyto-histological changes encountered in myoid hamartomas are discussed with clinical, radiological and pathological correlation to differentiate it from other benign and malignant breast lesions.
Breast ; Muscle, Smooth ; seconds ; Lesion, NOS ; differentiation