-
World Journal of Urology Jul 2019Though clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease worldwide, there is still much confusion in the literature and the many clinical guidelines as to... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Though clinical benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a common disease worldwide, there is still much confusion in the literature and the many clinical guidelines as to its definition. Often the disease is associated with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) and managed according to only symptoms. This leads to undertreatment in some patients with severe bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) with no symptoms, and overtreatment in patients with LUTS but no clinical BPH.
DEFINITION OF A DISEASE
Fundamentally, a disease can be defined as an abnormal structure or function or a condition which may cause harm to the organism.
DEFINITION OF CLINICAL BPH
Thus, clinical BPH can be defined as prostate adenoma/adenomata, causing a varying degree of BOO, which may eventually cause harm to the patients. With this definition, we are then able to differentiate the disease clinical BPH from the many other less common causes of LUTS, and then treat it according to its severity.
DIAGNOSING CLINICAL BPH
Clinical BPH can be diagnosed with non-invasive ultrasound in the clinic, grading it according to the shape (intravesical prostatic protrusion) and size of the prostate.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Treatment can then be planned according to the disease severity using our staging system that classifies severity according to the presence or absence of significant obstruction and bothersomeness of symptoms.
CONCLUSION
This would lead to better individualised and cost-effective management of the disease clinical BPH.
Topics: Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Organ Size; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Ultrasonography; Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction
PubMed: 30805683
DOI: 10.1007/s00345-019-02691-0 -
Journal of Crohn's & Colitis May 2022No consensus exists on defining intestinal ultrasound response, transmural healing, or transmural remission in inflammatory bowel disease, nor clear guidance for optimal...
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
No consensus exists on defining intestinal ultrasound response, transmural healing, or transmural remission in inflammatory bowel disease, nor clear guidance for optimal timing of assessment during treatment. This systematic review and expert consensus study aimed to define such recommendations, along with key parameters included in response reporting.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched from inception to July 26, 2021, using pre-defined terms. Studies were eligible if at least two intestinal ultrasound [IUS] assessments at different time points during treatment were reported, along with an appropriate reference standard. The QUADAS-2 tool was used to examine study-level risk of bias. An international panel of experts [n = 18] rated an initial 196 statements [RAND/UCLA process, scale 1-9]. Two videoconferences were conducted, resulting in additional ratings of 149 and 13 statements, respectively.
RESULTS
Out of 5826 records, 31 full-text articles, 16 abstracts, and one research letter were included; 83% [40/48] of included studies showed a low concern of applicability, and 96% [46/48] had a high risk of bias. A consensus was reached on 41 statements, with clear definitions of IUS treatment response, transmural healing, transmural remission, timing of assessment, and general considerations when using intestinal ultrasound in inflammatory bowel disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Response criteria and time points of response assessment varied between studies, complicating direct comparison of parameter changes and their relation to treatment outcomes. To ensure a unified approach in routine care and clinical trials, we provide recommendations and definitions for key parameters for intestinal ultrasound response, to incorporate into future prospective studies.
Topics: Chronic Disease; Consensus; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Intestines; Prospective Studies; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 34614172
DOI: 10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab173 -
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Oct 2017To determine the sensitivity and specificity of first-trimester ultrasound for the detection of fetal abnormalities and to establish which factors might impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the sensitivity and specificity of first-trimester ultrasound for the detection of fetal abnormalities and to establish which factors might impact on screening performance.
METHODS
A systematic review and meta-analysis of all relevant publications was performed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of two-dimensional transabdominal and transvaginal ultrasound in the detection of congenital fetal anomalies prior to 14 weeks' gestation. The reference standard was detection of abnormalities at birth or postmortem. Factors that may impact on detection rates were evaluated, including population characteristics, gestational age, healthcare setting, ultrasound modality, use of an anatomical checklist for detection of first-trimester anomalies and type of malformation included in the study. In an effort to reduce the impact of study heterogeneity on the results of the meta-analysis, data from the studies were analyzed within subgroups of major anomalies vs all types of anomaly and low-risk/unselected populations vs high-risk populations.
RESULTS
An electronic search (until 29 July 2015) identified 2225 relevant citations, from which a total of 30 studies, published between 1991 and 2014, were selected for inclusion. The pooled estimate for the detection of major abnormalities in low-risk or unselected populations (19 studies, 115 731 fetuses) was 46.10% (95% CI, 36.88-55.46%). The detection rate for all abnormalities in low-risk or unselected populations (14 studies, 97 976 fetuses) was 32.35% (95% CI, 22.45-43.12%), whereas in high-risk populations (six studies, 2841 fetuses) it was 61.18% (95% CI, 37.71-82.19%). Of the factors examined for their impact on detection rate, there was a statistically significant relationship (P < 0.0001) between the use of a standardized anatomical protocol during first-trimester anomaly screening and its sensitivity for the detection of fetal anomalies in all subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS
Detection rates of first-trimester fetal anomalies ranged from 32% in low-risk groups to more than 60% in high-risk groups, demonstrating that first-trimester ultrasound has the potential to identify a large proportion of fetuses affected with structural anomalies. The use of a standardized anatomical protocol improves the sensitivity of first-trimester ultrasound screening for all anomalies and major anomalies in populations of varying risk. The development and introduction of international protocols with standard anatomical views should be undertaken in order to optimize first-trimester anomaly detection. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Congenital Abnormalities; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Reference Standards; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 27546497
DOI: 10.1002/uog.17246 -
Surgery Open Science Oct 2022Ultrasound is an essential tool for the hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeon.
BACKGROUND
Ultrasound is an essential tool for the hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgeon.
METHODS
This review focuses on transabdominal, open intraoperative, and laparoscopic ultrasonography of the liver, biliary tract, and pancreas. The goal is to obtain optimal ultrasound images through an understanding of the equipment setup, transducer (probe) selection, terminology, and general scanning principles. Outlined is a structured, standardized approach necessary to obtain complete information when doing intraoperative ultrasound. When done by the surgeon, the goal of the examination typically is to answer a question or questions through a focused rather than a comprehensive diagnostic examination. Finally, presented are the details of techniques specific to scanning each of the major organs.
RESULTS
A structured, standardized ultrasound scanning approach provides for optimal image acquisition. It allows one to develop standardized views of common structures resulting in "pattern recognition," making learning and interpreting images easier. A standardized approach ensures a complete ultrasound examination, and it minimizes the chance of missed findings.
SUMMARY
The general principles for transabdominal, open intraoperative, and laparoscopic ultrasonography scanning are similar. One can gather considerable information using these modalities during a clinical examination, procedure, or operation. For success, it is critical to develop a standardized approach to scanning and use it every time. This facilitates familiarity when viewing images, making it easier for the novice to learn and gain experience. Using a systematic approach ensures that the experienced ultrasonographer obtains all the essential information needed at the time of surgery.
PubMed: 36324368
DOI: 10.1016/j.sopen.2022.09.002 -
Multimedia Manual of Cardiothoracic... Sep 2020Diaphragmatic paralysis with subsequent eventration and respiratory compromise has a huge impact on the quality of life of affected patients. Many different surgical...
Diaphragmatic paralysis with subsequent eventration and respiratory compromise has a huge impact on the quality of life of affected patients. Many different surgical approaches for correcting this problem have been described in the past, using both transabdominal and transthoracic pathways. Either way, since the procedure in general requires suturing of the diaphragm, minimally invasive techniques have only been adopted very slowly and most thoracic surgeons nowadays still use a minithoracotomy, even when adopting a video-assisted approach. We have developed a safe and simple completely thoracoscopic technique for diaphragmatic plication, and in this video tutorial we demonstrate our technique.
Topics: Diaphragm; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Respiratory Paralysis; Thoracic Surgery, Video-Assisted
PubMed: 33301244
DOI: 10.1510/mmcts.2020.054 -
Przeglad Menopauzalny = Menopause Review Dec 2017Uterine leiomyomas or uterine fibroids are the most common gynaecological tumours and occur in about 20-50% of women around the world. Ultrasonography (USG) is the... (Review)
Review
Uterine leiomyomas or uterine fibroids are the most common gynaecological tumours and occur in about 20-50% of women around the world. Ultrasonography (USG) is the first-line imaging examination in suspected fibroids and shows high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing this condition. Ultrasound scans can be performed transvaginally (transvaginal scan - TVS) or transabdominally (transabdominal scan - TAS); both scans have advantages and limitations, but, in general, transvaginal sonography is superior to transabdominal sonography in most cases of pelvic pathology. Whether a leiomyoma is symptomatic or not depends primarily on its size and location. During ultrasound examination, leiomyomas usually appear as well-defined, solid, concentric, hypoechoic masses that cause a variable amount of acoustic shadowing. During the examination of leiomyomas differential diagnosis is important. Some of the most common misdiagnosed pathologies are adenomyosis, solid tumours of adnexa, and endometrial polyps. Misdiagnosis of a leiomyosarcoma has the most negative consequences, presenting symptoms are very similar to benign leiomyoma, and there is no pelvic imaging technique that can reliably differentiate between those pathologies. Magnetic resonance and computer tomography might be helpful in the diagnostics of uterine leiomyoma; however, ultrasound examination is the basic imaging test confirming the existence of leiomyomas, allowing the differentiation of myomas with adenomyosis, endometrial polyps, ovarian tumours, and pregnant uterus.
PubMed: 29483851
DOI: 10.5114/pm.2017.72754 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Approximately 0.6% to 4% of cholecystectomies are performed because of gallbladder polyps. The decision to perform cholecystectomy is based on presence of gallbladder... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Approximately 0.6% to 4% of cholecystectomies are performed because of gallbladder polyps. The decision to perform cholecystectomy is based on presence of gallbladder polyp(s) on transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), or both. These polyps are currently considered for surgery if they grow more than 1 cm. However, non-neoplastic polyps (pseudo polyps) do not need surgery, even when they are larger than 1 cm. True polyps are neoplastic, either benign (adenomas) or (pre)malignant (dysplastic polyps/carcinomas). True polyps need surgery, especially if they are premalignant or malignant. There has been no systematic review and meta-analysis on the accuracy of TAUS and EUS in the diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true gallbladder polyps, and (pre)malignant polyps.
OBJECTIVES
To summarise and compare the accuracy of transabdominal ultrasound (TAUS) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for the detection of gallbladder polyps, for differentiating between true and pseudo gallbladder polyps, and for differentiating between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trial registrations (last date of search 09 July 2018). We had no restrictions regarding language, publication status, or prospective or retrospective nature of the studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies reporting on the diagnostic accuracy data (true positive, false positive, false negative and true negative) of the index test (TAUS or EUS or both) for detection of gallbladder polyps, differentiation between true and pseudo polyps, or differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. We only accepted histopathology after cholecystectomy as the reference standard, except for studies on diagnosis of gallbladder polyp. For the latter studies, we also accepted repeated imaging up to six months by TAUS or EUS as the reference standard.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently screened abstracts, selected studies for inclusion, and collected data from each study. The quality of the studies was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. The bivariate random-effects model was used to obtain summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, to compare diagnostic performance of the index tests, and to assess heterogeneity.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 16 studies were included. All studies reported on TAUS and EUS as separate tests and not as a combination of tests. All studies were at high or unclear risk of bias, ten studies had high applicability concerns in participant selection (because of inappropriate participant exclusions) or reference standards (because of lack of follow-up for non-operated polyps), and three studies had unclear applicability concerns in participant selection (because of high prevalence of gallbladder polyps) or index tests (because of lack of details on ultrasound equipment and performance). A meta-analysis directly comparing results of TAUS and EUS in the same population could not be performed because only limited studies executed both tests in the same participants. Therefore, the results below were obtained only from indirect test comparisons. There was significant heterogeneity amongst all comparisons (target conditions) on TAUS and amongst studies on EUS for differentiating true and pseudo polyps.Detection of gallbladder polyps: Six studies (16,260 participants) used TAUS. We found no studies on EUS. The summary sensitivity and specificity of TAUS for the detection of gallbladder polyps was 0.84 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98), respectively. In a cohort of 1000 people, with a 6.4% prevalence of gallbladder polyps, this would result in 37 overdiagnosed and seven missed gallbladder polyps.Differentiation between true polyp and pseudo gallbladder polyp: Six studies (1078 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.68 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.85) and the summary specificity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.91). Three studies (209 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.90 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.96). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 10% having true polyps, this would result in 189 overdiagnosed and 32 missed true polyps by TAUS, and 90 overdiagnosed and 15 missed true polyps by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (relative sensitivity 1.06, P = 0.70, relative specificity 1.15, P = 0.12).Differentiation between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps of the gallbladder: Four studies (1,009 participants) used TAUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.79 (95% CI 0.62 to 0.90) and the summary specificity was 0.89 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.97). Three studies (351 participants) used EUS; the summary sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.92) and the summary specificity was 0.92 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.95). In a cohort of 1000 participants with gallbladder polyps, with 5% having a dysplastic polyp/carcinoma, this would result in 105 overdiagnosed and 11 missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by TAUS and 76 overdiagnosed and seven missed dysplastic polyps/carcinomas by EUS. There was no evidence of a difference between the diagnostic accuracy of TAUS and EUS (log likelihood test P = 0.74).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although TAUS seems quite good at discriminating between gallbladder polyps and no polyps, it is less accurate in detecting whether the polyp is a true or pseudo polyp and dysplastic polyp/carcinoma or adenoma/pseudo polyp. In practice, this would lead to both unnecessary surgeries for pseudo polyps and missed cases of true polyps, dysplastic polyps, and carcinomas. There was insufficient evidence that EUS is better compared to TAUS in differentiating between true and pseudo polyps and between dysplastic polyps/carcinomas and adenomas/pseudo polyps. The conclusions are based on heterogeneous studies with unclear criteria for diagnosis of the target conditions and studies at high or unclear risk of bias. Therefore, results should be interpreted with caution. Further studies of high methodological quality, with clearly stated criteria for diagnosis of gallbladder polyps, true polyps, and dysplastic polyps/carcinomas are needed to accurately determine diagnostic accuracy of EUS and TAUS.
Topics: Adenoma; Adult; Carcinoma; Diagnosis, Differential; Endosonography; Gallbladder Diseases; Gallbladder Neoplasms; Humans; Polyps; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 30109701
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012233.pub2