ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The prevalence and survival of colorectal cancer in Sri Lankans has not been previously reported. We did a retrospective and a prospective survey, in the region of North Colombo, Sri Lanka between 1992 and 2004. The aim was to study cancer burden, sites of colorectal cancer and survival after surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of 175 patients with colorectal cancer between 1992 and 1997 in the selected region of were analysed retrospectively. A prospective study was performed in 220 new patients with colorectal cancer between 1996 and 2004. Data evaluated were demographics, tumour stage and survival. RESULTS: Between 1992 and 1997 the crude annual incidence of colorectal cancer was 1.9 per 100,000, which increased over the years. The current national crude annual incidence is 3.2 per 100,000 in women and 4.9 in men. Median age at presentation was 60 years with similar prevalence of cancer in men and women. In the entire group, 28% of cancers were in those less than 50 years old. Survival at 2 and 5 years was 69% and 52%. The majority of cancer related deaths were within the first 2 years after surgery. CONCLUSION: The burden of colorectal cancer in Sri Lanka is on the rise. Up to a third of cancers occur in those under 50 years, and the majority of cancers are in the rectum or rectosigmoid region. Flexible sigmoidoscopy offers a useful screening tool.
Subject(s)
Adult , Age Factors , Colorectal Neoplasms/epidemiology , Cost of Illness , Female , Humans , Incidence , Male , Middle Aged , Neoplasm Staging , Prevalence , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Sex Factors , Sri Lanka/epidemiology , Survival Rate , Time FactorsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Fecal incontinence (FI) impairs quality of life. We performed an audit of biofeedback (BFB) in management of patients with FI. METHODS: Fifty patients (median [range] age 30 [4-77] years; 28 men) who received BFB for median (range) of 15 weeks (4-28), either postoperatively (n=39), or as the sole treatment (n=11) were evaluated. Cleveland continence score (0-good, 20-poor), anorectal manometry parameters, and patient satisfaction (assessed by Fecal Incontinence Quality of Life Scale [FIQLS]) were evaluated at baseline and after the BFB therapy in all patients. RESULTS: Continence scores improved after intervention. In the surgery + BFB group, mean (SD) continence scores baseline vs. postsurgery + BFB (post-treatment) were 18.2 (3.9) vs. 6 (5.9; p< 0.01). In the BFB alone group, scores were similar at baseline 11.7 (5.9) and 6.1 (5.2) post BFB (p=0.08). Maximum resting anal pressure (MRP) improved from preoperative 12.6 (9.8) mmHg to: vs. 21.1 (11.9) mmHg post-treatment (p< 0.01). In patients who received BFB alone, MRP did not change significantly (pre vs post BFB 22.9 (11.7) mmHg vs. 29.6 (12.1) mmHg [p=0.08]). Maximal squeeze pressure improved significantly (preoperative vs. post-treatment: 46.3 (41.2) mmHg vs. 78.3 (33.9) mmHg [p< 0.01]; pre vs. post BFB alone: 72.4 (34.8) mmHg vs. 114.5 (43.1) mmHg [p< 0.01]). In 29 patients (19 surgery + BFB; 10 BFB alone), maximal tolerable volume in saline continence improved from baseline 47.9 (27.4) mL to 152.6 (87) mL after surgery + BFB (p< 0.01); pre vs. post BFB: 98 mL (95.9) vs. 205 (134.3) p< 0.02]. There was significant improvement in all parameters of FIQLS in both groups: lifestyle (p< 0.02), coping/behavior (p< 0.02), depression/self perception (p< 0.02) and embarrassment (p< 0.02). CONCLUSION: BFB therapy with or without surgical reconstruction of the damaged anal sphincter improves maximum squeeze pressure, saline retention capacity, quality of life and is a useful first line treatment for fecal incontinence.
Subject(s)
Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anal Canal/physiology , Biofeedback, Psychology , Child , Child, Preschool , Fecal Incontinence/surgery , Female , Humans , Male , Manometry , Middle Aged , Quality of LifeABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Economic constraints remain one of the major limitations on the quality of health care even in industrialised countries. Improvement of quality will require optimising facilities within available resources. Our objective was to determine costs of surgery and to identify areas where cost reduction is possible. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 80 patients undergoing routine major and intermediate surgery during a period of 6 months were selected at random. All consumables used and procedures carried out were documented. A unit cost was assigned to each of these. Costing was based on 3 main categories: preoperative (investigations, blood product related costs), operative (anaesthetic charges, consumables and theatre charges) and post-operative (investigations, consumables, hospital stay). Theatre charges included two components: fixed (consumables) and variable (dependent on time per operation). RESULTS: The indirect costs (e.g. administration costs, 'hotel' costs), accounted for 30%, of the total and were lower than similar costs in industrialised nations. The largest contributory factors (median, range) towards total cost were, basic hospital charges (30%; 15 to 63%); theatre charges fixed (23%; 6 to 35%) and variable (14%; 8 to 27%); and anaesthetic charges (15%; 1 to 36%). CONCLUSION: Cost reduction in patients undergoing surgery should focus on decreasing hospital stay, operating theatre time and anaesthetic expenditure. Although definite measures can be suggested from the study, further studies on these variables are necessary to optimise cost effectiveness of surgical units.