Significance of thickening of the upper gastrointestinal tract on cross sectional imaging: Endoscopic correlation.

AIM: To report the endoscopic findings for a cohort of patients referred for discussion at a specialist oesophago-gastric multi-disciplinary team (MDT) meeting, on the basis of CT mural thickening. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The records of patients discussed at a regional oesophago-gastric MDT during the time 1st April 2014 to 5th February 2016 were reviewed in order to identify patients who were endoscopy naïve at the time of CT and scans re-reviewed to measure maximum wall thickness. RESULTS: 456 patients were referred for discussion, 126 met the inclusion criteria. Endoscopy confirmed malignancy in 50/126 patients (40%); by site, oesophagus (21/67, 31%), stomach (25/50, 50%), duodenum (4/9, 44%). Malignancy was confirmed for 10/48 (21%) patients with isolated wall thickening, for 11/33 (33%) when regional lymphadenopathy was identified, and for 28/44 (64%) when possible metastatic disease was identified. The commonest source of diagnostic uncertainty was thickening around the gastro-oesophageal junction in the presence of a hiatal hernia. Wall thickening >20 mm was strongly associated with malignancy compared to thickening =<20 mm (p < 0.0001). Using this threshold would have resulted in a sensitivity of 32/50 (64%), a specificity of 55/76 (72%), a positive predictive value of 32/53 (60%) and a negative predictive value of 55/73 (75%) in this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The cancer pick-up rate of 40% and the medicolegal consequences of a missed cancer suggest that endoscopy should be performed in all patients with CT identified mural thickening. In the presence of isolated mural thickening and a normal endoscopy, no formal MDT discussion is required.

Maternal outcomes in subsequent delivery after previous obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI): a multi-centre retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: Women with a history of obstetric anal sphincter injury (OASI) are at increased risk of recurrence (rOASI) at subsequent delivery; however, evidence regarding the factors influencing this risk is limited. Furthermore, little is known about what factors influence the decision to alternatively deliver by elective caesarean section (ELLSCS). METHODS: Retrospective univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of prospectively collected data from four NHS electronic maternity databases including primiparous women sustaining OASIS during a singleton, term, cephalic, vaginal delivery between 2004 and 2015, who had a subsequent delivery. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred seventy-two women met the criteria; 10.2% delivering vaginally had a repeat OASI and 59.4% had a second-degree tear. Women having an ELLSCS were more likely to be Caucasian, older, have previously had an operative vaginal delivery (OVD) and have a more severe degree of OASI. Positive predictors for rOASI were increased birth weight and maternal age at both index and subsequent deliveries, a more severe degree of initial OASI and Asian ethnicity. The overall mediolateral episiotomy (MLE) rate was 15.6%; 77.2% of those who had an episiotomy sustained no spontaneous perineal trauma. Only 4.4% of women with a rOASI had an MLE, whilst the MLE rate was 16.9% in those without a recurrence (p < 0.001). MLE decreased the risk of rOASI by 80%. Birth weight > 4 kg increased the risk 2.5 fold. CONCLUSIONS: Women with previous OASIS are at an increased risk of recurrence. A more liberal use of MLE during subsequent vaginal delivery could significantly reduce the risk of recurrence.