Search

Rapid measurement tools or fast identification of bioaerosols Bioaerosols are complex mixtures of airborne particles of biological origin, many are of inhalable size, but those less than 10 μm are respirable and can penetrate deep into the respiratory system, making them a health concern, argue Professors Frederic Coulon and Corinne Whitby. While causing infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and COVID-19, bioaerosols are also associated with non-infectious diseases, such as hypersensitivity, allergies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and asthma, that cause significant mortality and morbidity. There are two major challenges to the fast identification of bioaerosols: 1) bioaerosol sampling and characterisation, 2) lack of evidenced exposure thresholds to inform regulators and health officials. In this article, the researchers look at the opportunities, sampling and characterisation of these bioaerosols.

Background Minimal access surgery is associated with improved cosmetic and other short-term outcomes. Conventionally, an abdominal incision is made for specimen extraction. We assessed the feasibility of specimen extraction through one of the natural orifices and analyzed its impact on short-term outcomes. Methods A prospectively collected data were reviewed on consecutive patients who underwent natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE) after laparoscopic colorectal surgery. The results were compared with a matched group who had transabdominal extraction (TAE) of the specimens. A systematic literature review was performed to compare our results. Results The combined median operating time for right and left colectomies was significantly higher in the NOSE group as compared with TAE group (260 vs. 150). There was no mortality in either group and no conversions to TAE in the NOSE group. No local metastasis or major iatrogenic injuries were reported at the time of retrieval. The results were comparable to those of a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Conclusion The results of NOSE are comparable to those of TAEs. The absence of a minilaparotomy for specimen extraction may lead to a speedy recovery and better cosmesis.

Non-restorative surgery for rectal cancer is indicated in patients with comorbidities, advanced disease and poor continence. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the postoperative morbidity of Hartmann’s procedure (HP) with that of extrasphincteric and intersphincteric abdominoperineal resection (APR) in the treatment of rectal cancer. The Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for publications comparing postoperative morbidity of HP and APR. The incidence of overall surgical complications, pelvic-perineal complications and pelvic abscess was analysed as primary endpoints. Readmissions requiring reintervention and postoperative mortality were also compared. A cumulative analysis showed a significantly higher rate of overall complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.553, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.320 to 0.953 and P value 0.033) and pelvic-perineal complications (OR 0.464, 95% CI 0.250 to 0.861 and P value 0.015) after APR. The incidence of isolated pelvic abscess formation was significantly higher after HP (OR 2.523, 95% CI 1.383 to 4.602 and P value 0.003). A subgroup analysis of intersphincteric APR compared with HP did not show any significant difference in the incidence of overall complications, pelvic-perineal complications or pelvic abscess formation (P values of 0.452, 0.258 and 0.100, respectively). There was no significant difference in readmissions, reinterventions and mortality after HP and APR (P 0.992, 0.198 and 0.151). An extrasphincteric APR is associated with higher overall and pelvic-perineal complications and may be reserved for tumours invading the anal sphincter complex. In the absence of sphincter involvement, both HP and intersphincteric APR are better alternatives with comparable morbidity.

Background Transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEMS) has been suggested as an alternative to total mesorectal excision (TME) in the treatment of early rectal cancers. The extended role of TEMS for higher stage rectal cancers after neoadjuvant therapy is also experimented. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the oncological outcomes and report on the evidence-based clinical supremacy of either technique. Methods Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for the randomized controlled trials comparing the oncological and perioperative outcomes of TEMS and a radical TME. A local recurrence and postoperative complications were analyzed as primary end points. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and duration of hospital stay were compared as secondary end points. Results There was no statistical difference in the local recurrence or postoperative complications with a risk ratio of 1.898 and 0.753 and p-values of 0.296 and 0.306, respectively, for TEMS and TME. A marked statistical significance in favor of TEMS was observed for secondary end points. There was standard difference in means of −4.697, −6.940, and −5.685 with p-values of 0.001, 0.005, and 0.001 for blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay, respectively. Conclusion TEMS procedure is a viable alternative to TME in the treatment of early rectal cancers. An extended role of TEMS after neoadjuvant therapy may also be offered to a selected group of patients. TME surgery remains the standard of care in more advanced rectal cancers.

Extralevator abdominoperineal excision (ELAPE) of rectal cancer has been proposed to achieve better oncological outcomes. The resultant wide perineal wound, however, presents a challenge for primary closure and subsequent wound healing. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of primary perineal closure with those of biological mesh reconstruction. The Medline and Embase search was performed for the publications comparing primary perineal closure to biological mesh reconstruction. Early perineal wound complications (seroma, infection, dehiscence) and late perineal wound complications (perineal hernia, chronic pain, and chronic sinus) were analyzed as primary endpoints. Intraoperative blood loss, operation time, and hospital stay were compared as secondary endpoints. There was no significant difference in the overall early wound complications after primary closure or biological mesh reconstruction (odds ratio (OR) of 0.575 with 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.241 to 1.373 and a P value of 0.213). The incidence of perineal hernia after 1 year was significantly high after primary closure of the perineal wounds (OR of 0.400 with 95% CI of 0.240 to 0.665 and a P value of 0.001). No significant differences were observed among other early and late perineal wound complications. The operation time and hospital stay were shorter after primary perineal closure (p 0.001). A lower incidence of perineal hernia and comparable early perineal wound complications after biological mesh reconstruction show a relative superiority over primary closure. More randomized studies are required before a routine biological mesh reconstruction can be recommended for closure of perineal wounds after ELAPE.

Anastomotic leak is a feared complication of rectal cancer surgery. A diverting stoma is believed to act as a safety mechanism against this undesirable outcome. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the role of loop ileostomy in the prevention of this complication. The Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing anastomotic complications after rectal cancer surgery in the presence or absence of diverting ileostomy. The need for reoperation and postoperative complications were also analysed. The length of hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss and operating time were analysed as secondary endpoints. A significantly higher number of anastomotic leaks was detected in patients with no diverting ileostomies than in those with diversion (odds ratio (OR) 0.292 and 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.177–0.481), and more patients required reoperations in this group (OR 0.219 and 95% CI 0.114–0.422). The rate of complications other than anastomotic leak was significantly higher in patients with diverting ileostomies than in those without (OR 3.337 and 95% CI of 1.570–7.093). The operating time was longer in the ileostomy group than in the no ileostomy group (P 0.001), but no significant differences in the intraoperative blood loss or postoperative hospital stay length were observed between the two groups(P 0.199 and 0.191 respectively). A lower leak rate in the presence of diverting ileostomy is supported by relatively weak evidence. While mitigating the consequences of leakage, diverting ileostomies lead to numerous other complications. High-quality RCTs are needed before routine ileostomy diversions can be recommended after rectal cancer surgery.

© 2018 by the authors. Endotoxin is a bioaerosol component that is known to cause respiratory effects in exposed populations. To date, most research focused on occupational exposure, whilst much less is known about the impact of emissions from industrial operations on downwind endotoxin concentrations. A review of the literature was undertaken, identifying studies that reported endotoxin concentrations in both ambient environments and around sources with high endotoxin emissions. Ambient endotoxin concentrations in both rural and urban areas are generally below 10 endotoxin units (EU) m -3 ; however, around significant sources such as compost facilities, farms, and wastewater treatment plants, endotoxin concentrations regularly exceeded 100 EU m -3 . However, this is affected by a range of factors including sampling approach, equipment, and duration. Reported downwind measurements of endotoxin demonstrate that endotoxin concentrations can remain above upwind concentrations. The evaluation of reported data is complicated due to a wide range of different parameters including sampling approaches, temperature, and site activity, demonstrating the need for a standardised methodology and improved guidance. Thorough characterisation of ambient endotoxin levels and modelling of endotoxin from pollution sources is needed to help inform future policy and support a robust health-based risk assessment process.