ABSTRACT
Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a safe and accurate tool for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. CTC requires dedicated radiological expertise and demonstrates a high sensitivity and specificity in polyp detection, which is similar to optical colonoscopy (OC). Newer preparation techniques for CTC, such as faecal tagging without catharsis might further improve both the tolerability and accuracy of the test. While exposure to ionising radiation, lack of capacity for therapeutic intervention and potentially diminished sensitivity for flat serrated polyps are limitations of CTC, the technique has a role in select populations. CTC should be considered in frail or elderly patients at high anaesthetic risk for OC, patients with stricturing colonic lesions as well as incomplete colonoscopy, or in patients at risk of delayed access to timely OC. With an ever-growing demand for endoscopic services, increased utilisation of CTC could reduce waiting times for colonoscopy, thereby broadening access to timely and effective CRC screening. Further research is required to improve further the detection of flat lesions, including sessile serrated polyps.
Subject(s)
Colonic Polyps , Colonography, Computed Tomographic , Colorectal Neoplasms , Aged , Colonic Polyps/diagnosis , Colonography, Computed Tomographic/methods , Colonoscopy/methods , Colorectal Neoplasms/diagnosis , Computers , Humans , Sensitivity and Specificity , TomographyABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Controversy still exists regarding the choice of implant material for orbital floor reconstructions, in particular the use of silicone. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of orbital floor reconstructions with silicone versus other non-silicone implants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a 12 year retrospective review of patients who had orbital floor reconstructions for fractures at the Royal Hobart Hospital, Tasmania, Australia, from 1995 to 2007. Surgical admission notes, CT reports, operation records, outpatient notes, and complications were recorded. Long-term follow-up consisted of a structured telephone interview assessing patient outcomes and satisfaction, including ongoing disability, following orbital floor repair. RESULTS: Eighty one patients were identified as having had orbital floor reconstruction with an implant. Mean long-term follow-up was 63 months. Outcomes of Silicone implants (n=58) were compared to non-silicone implant materials (n=23) including titanium mesh, 'Lactasorb', 'Resorb-X', autologous cartilage, and bone graft. Statistically significant advantages in the silicone group were found in the number of patients with palpable implants (24% vs 63%, p=0.005), the number of patients without any complaint (67% vs 32%, p=0.004), and the number of patients requiring subsequent surgery for complications related to their implants (5% vs 23%, p=0.046). CONCLUSION: The appropriate use of silicone implants for orbital floor reconstruction can have good results, contrary to much of the literature, with low complication rates including an acceptably low rate of infection and extrusion, as well as high patient satisfaction. To establish definite guidelines for best surgical practise, particularly amongst synthetic implant materials, prospective study is required.
