Use of antibiotic prophylaxis in elective inguinal hernia repair in adults in London and south-east England: a cross-sectional survey.

PURPOSE: Evidence regarding whether or not antibiotic prophylaxis is beneficial in preventing post-operative surgical site infection in adult inguinal hernia repair is conflicting. A recent Cochrane review based on 17 randomised trials did not reach a conclusion on this subject. This study aimed to describe the current practice and determine whether clinical equipoise is prevalent. METHODS: Surgeons in training were recruited to administer the Survey of Hernia Antibiotic Prophylaxis usE survey to consultant-level general surgeons in London and the south-east of England on their practices and beliefs regarding antibiotic prophylaxis in adult elective inguinal hernia repair. Local prophylaxis guidelines for the participating hospital sites were also determined. RESULTS: The study was conducted at 34 different sites and received completed surveys from 229 out of a possible 245 surgeons, a 93 % response rate. Overall, a large majority of hospital guidelines (22/28) and surgeons' personal beliefs (192/229, 84 %) supported the use of single-dose pre-operative intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis in inguinal hernia repair, although there was considerable variation in the regimens in use. The most widely used regimen was intravenous co-amoxiclav (1.2 g). Less than half of surgeons were adherent to their own hospital antibiotic guidelines for this procedure, although many incorrectly believed that they were following these. CONCLUSION: In the south-east of England, there is a strong majority of surgical opinion in favour of the use of antibiotic prophylaxis in this procedure. It is therefore likely to be extremely difficult to conduct further randomised studies in the UK to support or refute the effectiveness of prophylaxis in this commonly performed procedure.

Oesophageal xanthalasma with Barrett's Oesophagus and Menetrier's Disease.

This case report describes three conditions; oesophageal xanthalasma, Menetrier's disease and Barrett's oesophagus, none of which have ever been seen together, diagnosed in one patient. Further to the details of the case the endoscopic, radiological and histological findings are discussed. Any links between these three conditions are currently unclear.

The use of Nolvadex in the treatment of generic Tamoxifen-associated small joint arthralgia.

INTRODUCTION: Small joint arthralgia has been anecdotally reported for many years by women taking generic Tamoxifen (gT). However, it is a symptom that is absent from the side effect profile of the original Tamoxifen preparation Nolvadex. Our aim was to determine the prevalence of arthralgia in Tamoxifen users and to investigate whether it was associated with the excipient profile of the newer, generic formulations of Tamoxifen. METHODS: Women diagnosed with oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer between 2001 and 2005 were eligible. Those with new-onset arthralgia following commencement of gT were entered into a one year double crossover study. Patients were swapped from gT to Nolvadex for 6 months, the response noted, and then swapped back to gT for 6 months. RESULTS: Of 1020 new breast cancer patients, 918 (90%) were oestrogen receptor (OR) positive and were started on gT as part of their treatment. Of those, a total of 121 (13.2%) suffered with arthralgia. All 121 patients agreed to enter the study and swap treatment to Nolvadex for 6 months 114 patients (94.2%) had resolution of their arthralgia whilst on Nolvadex (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that there is an arthralgia syndrome which is prevalent in women taking generic Tamoxifen preparations. Symptoms are abolished when Nolvadex is used instead of gT. This suggests that the excipient profiles are an important factor. We hypothesise that either the excipient profile of gT induces arthralgia, or an unknown excipient of Nolvadex has a protective effect.

Is general practitioner access to breast imaging safe?

AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the consultant radiologist run open-access breast radiology service (OAR) to investigate whether the system was safe or whether cancers were being missed. METHODS: A retrospective review of the national cancer registry database to identify patients presenting with symptomatic breast cancer in the catchment area of the Royal Glamorgan Hospital (RGH) from April 2000 to April 2002 was performed. Pathology, radiology and outpatient records were reviewed to identify patients previously assessed at the RGH. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients with breast cancer were diagnosed via the OAR and 159 by the breast clinic (BC). Twelve patients with breast cancer were diagnosed after their initial presentation. Eight patients had been previously seen for benign breast lesions. Four patients had missed breast cancers (two were initially seen via the BC and two via the OAR). A significant difference in the number of cancers missed by the two referral routes was not observed (p = 0.221). CONCLUSION: OAR is as accurate a means of diagnosing breast cancer as traditional rapid access BCs. Women presenting with discrete lumps with no radiological abnormality should still undergo assessment with clinical fine core-biopsy.