PubMed · 12405319
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Robin Kaushik, Rajeev Sharma. 2002. Splenic abscess.. https://doi.org/10.1177/004947550203200429
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Isolated pancreatic tuberculosis is an extremely rare condition, more so in an immunocompetent individual. Its presentation as pancreatic abscesses with colonic perforation has not been reported so far. This condition poses difficulties in clinical diagnoses. Herein we report a case who was operated in another hospital for pancreatic abscesses, and referred to our institution later when he developed fecal peritonitis due to colonic perforation. Re-laparotomy, resection and exteriorisation of the colon were done. Acid fast bacilli was seen in the histopathological examination of the resected colon. The patient responded remarkably to anti-tuberculous therapy and two sittings of debridement. Post procedure the patient developed pancreatic fistula, which was managed successfully with stenting. Pancreatic tuberculosis should be considered as a differential diagnosis when pancreatitis is atypical.
BACKGROUND: Intra-abdominal infections result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Fluoroquinolones are among the various regimens that are used for the treatment of these infections. AIM: To evaluate the available data from laboratory and clinical studies regarding the use of fluoroquinolones for the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections. METHODS: We searched for relevant laboratory and clinical studies in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases. RESULTS: Good pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of fluoroquinolones in inflamed abdominal tissue are reported in several laboratory studies. In six prospective non-randomized clinical studies of patients with intra-abdominal infections, the clinical success achieved with the use of fluoroquinolones ranged from 77% to 94%. In 10 randomized-controlled trials fluoroquinolone-based regimens were compared with other commonly used (mainly beta-lactam-based) regimens. Clinical success, bacterial eradication, withdrawal because of toxicity and mortality were similar between the compared treatment arms except from two randomized-controlled trials, in which clinical success was statistically higher in the fluoroquinolone treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroquinolones seem to be an effective and relatively safe option for the treatment of patients with intra-abdominal infections.
There is still much controversy surrounding whether interval appendicectomy is appropriate for adults with an appendiceal mass or abscess. The main debate centres on the recurrence rate, the complication rate of interval appendicectomy, and the potential for underlying malignancy. This review aims to assess current practice and to determine whether it is possible to define "best practice" for the asymptomatic patient who has had an appendiceal mass or abscess treated conservatively. I sent a postal questionnaire to 90 consultant general surgeons requesting information about their practice of interval appendicectomy. I also conducted a literature search confined to studies involving only adult patients. The 77.8% of questionnaires returned revealed that 53% of the surgeons perform routine interval appendicectomy, mainly because of concerns about recurrence. The preference was for open appendicectomy at 6 weeks to 3 months. The literature search revealed a recurrence rate of 10%-25%, with a complication rate of 23%. It was evident that the chances of missing malignancy are low and thorough investigation is better than interval appendicectomy in detecting colonic cancer. The practice of performing interval appendicectomy varies, with just over half of the surgeons surveyed performing this procedure routinely. The literature provides little evidence that interval appendicectomy is routinely indicated and would support the view that it is unnecessary in 75%-90% of cases. However, there is scope for further consideration of the use of laparoscopic interval appendicectomy and a randomised trial is needed to fully evaluate this issue.