ABSTRACT
Background: The objective of the present study was to categorize serous effusions in accordance with the Indian Academy of Cytology (IAC) guidelines, evaluate the characteristics of various types of serous effusions using cytological findings, and determine the risk of malignancy within different diagnostic categories. Methods: The study conducted at a tertiary care teaching hospital focused on patients with pleural, and peritoneal effusions/ascitic fluid, using retrospective data from patient records. Samples sent to the pathology department for cytopathological analysis over a one-year period after obtaining approval from institutional ethics committee (IEC). The statistical methods used included descriptive statistics and frequency analysis to examine the different cell types and characteristics present in the effusions. Risk of malignancy was calculated for each category. A Chi-square test was used to assess the relationship between different diagnostic categories, with a p value of <0.05 indicating statistical significance. Results: The findings of the study indicate that out of a total of 161 cases, there were 127 (78.88%) male patients and 34 (21.12%) female patients, resulting in a male to female ratio of 18:5. Ascitic fluid was present in 103 cases (64%) and pleural fluid in 58 cases (36%). The majority of cases, 148 (91.92%), fell into the benign category, followed by 5 cases (3.10%) in category 3, 3 cases (1.86%) in category 5, 2 cases (1.24%) in category 4, and 3 cases (1.86%) in category 1. A statistically significant p value of 0.04 was found among the different diagnostic categories. Conclusions: The IAC has specific guidelines and recommendations for reporting serous effusion cytology to ensure accurate and consistent interpretation of results. In conclusion, reporting serous effusion cytology according to IAC guidelines is essential for accurate diagnosis, prognostic information, quality assurance, communication with the healthcare team, and promoting research and education in the field. Adhering to these guidelines ensures standardized reporting practices and improves patient care outcomes.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION@#The superiority of laparoscopic repair over open repair of incisional hernias (IHs) in the elective setting is still controversial. Our study aimed to compare the postoperative outcomes of laparoscopic and open elective IH repair in an Asian population.@*METHODS@#This retrospective study was conducted in an acute general hospital in Singapore between 2010 and 2015. Inclusion criteria were IH repair in an elective setting, IHs with diameter of 3-15 cm, and location at the ventral abdominal wall. We excluded patients who underwent emergency repair, had recurrent hernias or had loss of abdominal wall domain (i.e. hernia sac containing more than 30% of abdominal contents or any solid organs). Postoperative outcomes within a year such as recurrence, pain, infection, haematoma and seroma formation were compared between the two groups.@*RESULTS@#There were 174 eligible patients. The majority were elderly Chinese women who were overweight. Open repair was performed in 49.4% of patients, while 50.6% underwent laparoscopic repair. The mean operation time for open repair was 116 minutes (116 ± 60.6 minutes) and 139 minutes (136 ± 64.1 minutes) for laparoscopic repair (P = 0.079). Within a year after open repair, postoperative wound infection occurred in 15.1% of the patients in the open repair group compared to 1.1% in the laparoscopic group (P = 0.0007). Postoperative pain, recurrence and haematoma/seroma formation were comparable.@*CONCLUSION@#Elective laparoscopic IH repair has comparable outcomes with open repair and may offer the advantage of reduced postoperative wound infection rates.