Search

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Case series suggest that laparoscopic peritoneal lavage might be a promising alternative to sigmoidectomy in patients with perforated diverticulitis. We aimed to assess the superiority of laparoscopic lavage compared with sigmoidectomy in patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis, with respect to overall long-term morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised, open-label trial in 34 teaching hospitals and eight academic hospitals in Belgium, Italy, and the Netherlands (the Ladies trial). The Ladies trial is split into two groups: the LOLA group comparing laparoscopic lavage with sigmoidectomy and the DIVA group comparing Hartmann's procedure with sigmoidectomy plus primary anastomosis. The DIVA section of this trial is still underway but here we report the results of the LOLA section. Patients with purulent perforated diverticulitis were enrolled for LOLA, excluding patients with faecal peritonitis, aged older than 85 years, with high-dose steroid use (>/=20 mg daily), and haemodynamic instability. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1; stratified by age [/=60 years]) using secure online computer randomisation to laparoscopic lavage, Hartmann's procedure, or primary anastomosis in a parallel design after diagnostic laparoscopy. Patients were analysed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle and were followed up after the index operation at least once in the outpatient setting and after sigmoidoscopy and stoma reversal, according to local protocols. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of major morbidity and mortality within 12 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01317485. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2010, and Feb 22, 2013, 90 patients were randomly assigned in the LOLA section of the Ladies trial when the study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board because of an increased event rate in the lavage group. Two patients were excluded for protocol violations. The primary endpoint occurred in 30 (67%) of 45 patients in the lavage group and 25 (60%) of 42 patients in the sigmoidectomy group (odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.54-3.03, p=0.58). By 12 months, four patients had died after lavage and six patients had died after sigmoidectomy (p=0.43). INTERPRETATION: Laparoscopic lavage is not superior to sigmoidectomy for the treatment of purulent perforated diverticulitis. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the accuracy of endometrial thickness measurement in the detection of endometrial cancer among women with postmenopausal bleeding with individual patient data using different meta-analytic strategies. DATA SOURCES: Original data sets of studies detected after reviewing the included studies of three previous reviews on this subject. An additional literature search of published articles using MEDLINE databases was preformed from January 2000 to December 2006 to identify articles reporting on endometrial carcinoma and sonographic endometrial thickness measurement in women with postmenopausal bleeding. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: We identified 90 studies reporting on endometrial thickness measurements and endometrial carcinoma in women with postmenopausal bleeding. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We contacted 79 primary investigators to obtain the individual patient data of their reported studies, of which 13 could provide data. Data on 2,896 patients, of which 259 had carcinoma, were included. Several approaches were used in the analyses of the acquired data. First, we performed receiver operator characteristics (ROC) analysis per study, resulting in a summary area under the ROC curve (AUC) calculated as a weighted mean of AUCs from original studies. Second, individual patient data were pooled and analyzed with ROC analyses irrespective of study with standardization of distributional differences across studies using multiples of the median and by random effects logistic regression. Finally, we also used a two-stage procedure, calculating sensitivities and specificities for each study and using the bivariate random effects model to estimate summary estimates for diagnostic accuracy. This resulted in rather comparable ROC curves with AUCs varying between 0.82 and 0.84 and summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity located along these curves. These curves indicated a lower AUC than previously reported meta-analyses using conventional techniques. CONCLUSION: Previous meta-analyses on endometrial thickness measurement probably have overestimated its diagnostic accuracy in the detection of endometrial carcinoma. We advise the use of cutoff level of 3 mm for exclusion of endometrial carcinoma in women with postmenopausal bleeding. (Obstet Gynecol 2010;116:160-7)

The reported Endings of the European Consultation-Liaison Workgroup (ECLW) Collaborative Study describe consultation-liaison service delivery by 56 services from ZI European countries aggregated on a C-L service level. During the period of 1 year (1991), the participants applied a standardized, reliability tested method of patient data collection, and data were collected describing pertinent characteristics of the hospital, the C-L service, and the participating consultants. The consultation rate of 1% (median; 1.4% mean) underscores the discrepancy between epidemiology and the services delivered. The core function of C-L services in general hospitals is a quick comprehensive emergency psychiatric function. Reasons to see patients were the following. deliberate self-harm (17%), substance abuse (7.2%), current psychiatric symptoms (38.6%), and unexplained physical complaints (18.6%) (all means). A significant number of patients are old and seriously ill. Mood disorders and organic mental disorders are most predominant (17.7%). Somatoform and dissociative disorders together constitute 7.5%. C-L services in European countries are mainly emergency psychiatric services and perform an important bridge function between primary, general health, and mental health care. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science inc. All rights reserved.