Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 14 de 14
Filter
Add more filters










Publication year range
3.
World J Gastroenterol ; 29(18): 2747-2763, 2023 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37274068

ABSTRACT

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas, which can progress to severe AP, with a high risk of death. It is one of the most complicated and clinically challenging of all disorders affecting the abdomen. The main causes of AP are gallstone migration and alcohol abuse. Other causes are uncommon, controversial and insufficiently explained. The disease is primarily characterized by inappropriate activation of trypsinogen, infiltration of inflammatory cells, and destruction of secretory cells. According to the revised Atlanta classification, severity of the disease is categorized into three levels: Mild, moderately severe and severe, depending upon organ failure and local as well as systemic complications. Various methods have been used for predicting the severity of AP and its outcome, such as clinical evaluation, imaging evaluation and testing of various biochemical markers. However, AP is a very complex disease and despite the fact that there are of several clinical, biochemical and imaging criteria for assessment of severity of AP, it is not an easy task to predict its subsequent course. Therefore, there are existing controversies regarding diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, their effectiveness and complications in the treatment of AP. The main reason being the fact, that the pathophysiologic mechanisms of AP have not been fully elucidated and need to be studied further. In this editorial article, we discuss the efficacy of the existing diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, complications and treatment failure in the management of AP.


Subject(s)
Pancreatitis , Humans , Pancreatitis/diagnosis , Pancreatitis/etiology , Pancreatitis/therapy , Acute Disease , Pancreas/diagnostic imaging , Diagnostic Imaging , Biomarkers , Severity of Illness Index
4.
Clin Exp Hepatol ; 8(1): 70-77, 2022 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35415254

ABSTRACT

Aim of the study: Most of the malignancies leading to obstructive jaundice are diagnosed too late when they are already advanced and inoperable, with palliation being the only treatment option left. Due to progressing hyperbilirubinaemia with its consequent adverse effects, biliary drainage must be established even in advanced malignancies. This study aims to investigate and analyse factors that affect clinical outcomes of percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with obstructive jaundice due to advanced inoperable malignancy, and identify potential predictors of patient survival. Study design: Observational retrospective cohort study. Material and methods: Baseline variables and clinical outcomes were evaluated in 108 consecutive patients treated with PTBD. The study's primary endpoints were significant bilirubin level decrease and survival rates. Secondary endpoints included periprocedural major and minor complication rates and catheter primary and secondary patency rates. Results: PTBD was technically successful and bile ducts were successfully drained in all 108 patients. Median serum bilirubin level, which was 282 (171-376) µmol/l before drainage, decreased significantly, to 80 (56-144) µmol/l, 15 days after stent placement (p < 0.001). Patient survival ranged from 3 to 597 days and the overall (median) survival time following PTBD was 168 days (90-302). The 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18-month survival rates were 96.3%, 75.9%, 48.1%, 8.3% and 1.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that liver metastases and alkaline phosphatase were significantly associated with mortality. The overall complication rate was 9.3%. Conclusions: PTBD is a safe and effective method to relieve jaundice caused by advanced inoperable malignant disease. Careful patient selection is necessary when introducing PTBD in order to avoid invasive procedures in patients with a poor prognosis.

6.
Med Glas (Zenica) ; 15(2): 145-151, 2018 Aug 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29611841

ABSTRACT

Aim To determine capabilities and potential of contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enterography in order to establish the diagnosis and to evaluate severity and activity of intestinal inflammation. Methods Fifty-five patients with suspicion for presence of Crohn's disease were evaluated. All patients underwent contrast enhanced MRI enterography and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), and subsequently endoscopic examination or surgical treatment. Four parameters were analysed: thickening of the bowel wall, and presence of abscess, fistula and lymphadenopathy. Results Comparing results of DWI and contrast enhanced MRI enterography a significant difference between results given through diffusion and histopathological test was found, e.g. a significant difference between results obtained through diffusion and MRI enterography was found. MRI enterography sensitiveness for bowel wall thickening was 97.7% and specificity 70%, whilst DWI sensitivity for bowel wall thickening was 84% and specificity 100%. The diagnostics of abscess and fistula showed no significant difference between DWI and MRI, while in lymphadenopathy significant difference between contrast enhanced MRI enterography and DWI was found. Conclusion Contrast enhanced MRI enterography in combination with DWI allows for excellent evaluation of disease activity, but also problems or complications following it. The examination can be repeated, controlled, and it can contribute to monitoring of patients with this disease.


Subject(s)
Contrast Media , Crohn Disease/diagnostic imaging , Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Intestines/diagnostic imaging , Abscess/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Crohn Disease/pathology , Enterocolitis , Female , Fistula/diagnosis , Humans , Inflammation , Intestines/pathology , Lymphadenopathy/diagnosis , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Sensitivity and Specificity , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
7.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29201763

ABSTRACT

AIM: The assessment of the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP) is important for proper management of the disease and for its prognosis. The aim was to correlate clinical, biochemical, and imaging diagnostic parameters and evaluate their prognostic values in the early assessment of severity of AP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively studied 128 consecutive patients with AP. The predictors were clinical, biochemical, and imaging diagnostic parameters. The outcome measure was the occurrence of complications. Abdominal sonogram, contrast-enhanced computer tomography, and pancreatitis-specific clinical and laboratory findings were done. RESULTS: According to the Atlanta classification, 84 patients (65.6%) had mild and 44 (34.4%) had severe AP. The severity markers were significantly different between the mild and the severe groups (p < 0.001). Leukocyte count, serum albumin level, C-reactive protein (CRP), Ranson, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II), and Glasgow score were the factors associated with radiological severity grade. Leukocyte count, CRP, Ranson score, APACHE II, and Glasgow score were the factors associated with the number and appearance of acute fluid collections (AFCs). A significant association was found between the number of AFCs and the occurrence of complications [odds ratio 4.4; 95% confidence interval 2.5-7.6]. Hospital stay was significantly longer in the group with severe disease as compared with the group with mild disease (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Clinical, biochemical, and imaging diagnostic parameters are related to the clinical course of AP and they can predict its severity. This allows us to determine the severity of the disease and to target the patients with high scores for close monitoring and more aggressive intervention.How to cite this article: Zerem D, Zerem O, Zerem E. Role of Clinical, Biochemical, and Imaging Parameters in predicting the Severity of Acute Pancreatitis. Euroasian J Hepato-Gastroenterol 2017;7(1):1-5.

8.
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech ; 27(3): 132-138, 2017 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28414702

ABSTRACT

The optimal treatment for appendiceal mass formed after appendiceal rupture due to acute appendicitis is surrounded with controversy. The treatment strategy ranges from open surgery (emergency or interval appendectomy), laparoscopic appendectomy, and image-guided drainage, to conservative treatment with or without antibiotics. Nonsurgical treatment (including conservative and drainage treatment), followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence, is the traditional management of these patients. The need for interval appendectomy after a successful conservative or/and image-guided drainage treatment, has recently been questioned as the risk of recurrence is relatively small. Several authors consider that even in cases involving only ambulatory follow-up observation, without interval surgery after conservative management, the recurrence rate and risks of missing underlying pathologies were not high. This article evaluates the minimally invasive treatment modalities in the management of appendiceal mass, risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.


Subject(s)
Appendectomy/methods , Appendicitis/surgery , Acute Disease , Appendicitis/diagnosis , Humans , Intestinal Perforation/etiology , Intestinal Perforation/surgery , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Multimodal Imaging , Physical Examination/methods , Reoperation , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Ultrasonography
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...