RESUMEN
Introduction: Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort.Material and methods: Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group).Results: 389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Diagnostic and therapeutic delay was longer in cohort 2 [6.4 (95% CI 5.86.9) vs. 4.8 (95% CI 4.35.3) months, p<0.001]. More patients required non-elective treatment in the pandemic cohort (15.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.080). The tumour stage was more advanced in patients in cohort 2 [positive nodes in 52.3% vs. 36.7% (p=0.002), and metastatic disease in 23.6% vs. 16.6% (p=0.087)].Conclusion: CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced. (AU)
Introducción: La pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 ha afectado al manejo de los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal (CCR). El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el retraso diagnóstico, la sintomatología y el estadio de los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia con una cohorte histórica. Material y métodos: Los pacientes valorados en el comité multidisciplinar de CCR entre septiembre de 2019 y enero de 2020 (cohorte 1) se compararon con los presentados entre septiembre de 2020 y marzo de 2021 (cohorte 2). Resultados: Trescientos ochenta y nueve pacientes fueron incluidos, 169 en la cohorte 1 y 220 en la cohorte 2. El cribado del CCR y la anemia fueron las causas que llevaron al diagnóstico en más pacientes en la cohorte 1 y 2, respectivamente (p<0,001). El retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico fue mayor en la cohorte 2 (6,4 [IC 95%: 5,8-6,9] vs. 4,8 [IC 95%: 4,3-5,3] meses, p<0,001). En la cohorte pandémica hubo más pacientes que requirieron tratamiento urgente (15,5% vs. 9,5%, p=0,080). El estadio tumoral fue más avanzado en la cohorte 2 (ganglios positivos en el 52,3% vs. 36,7% [p=0,002] y enfermedad metastásica en el 23,6% vs. 16,6% [p=0,087]). Conclusión: Los pacientes con CCR en la cohorte pandémica tenían un retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico más largo, y menos pacientes fueron diagnosticados en el cribado de CCR. Además, los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia necesitaron tratamiento urgente con más frecuencia y su estadio tumoral fue más avanzado. (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Anciano , Pandemias , Infecciones por Coronavirus/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias del Colon , Estudios Retrospectivos , Estudios de Cohortes , EspañaRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group). RESULTS: 389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (p<0.001). Diagnostic and therapeutic delay was longer in cohort 2 [6.4 (95% CI 5.8-6.9) vs. 4.8 (95% CI 4.3-5.3) months, p<0.001]. More patients required non-elective treatment in the pandemic cohort (15.5% vs. 9.5%, p=0.080). The tumour stage was more advanced in patients in cohort 2 [positive nodes in 52.3% vs. 36.7% (p=0.002), and metastatic disease in 23.6% vs. 16.6% (p=0.087)]. CONCLUSION: CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasias Colorrectales , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Pandemias , COVID-19/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Neoplasias Colorrectales/terapia , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
Introduction: Treatment of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has affected the management of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnosis delay, symptoms, and stage of patients with CRC during the pandemic with a control cohort. Material and methods: Patients referred to the CRC multidisciplinary team between September 2019 and January 2020 (cohort 1, control group) were compared with those who presented between September 2020 and March 2021 (cohort 2, pandemic group). Results: 389 patients were included, 169 in cohort 1 and 220 in cohort 2. No differences were observed in the main characteristics of the patients. CRC screening and anaemia were the most common causes leading to the diagnosis of the tumour in cohort 1 and 2, respectively (p < 0.001). Diagnostic and therapeutic delay was longer in cohort 2 [6.4 (95% CI 5.8-6.9) vs. 4.8 (95% CI 4.3-5.3) months, p < 0.001]. More patients required non-elective treatment in the pandemic cohort (15.5% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.080). The tumour stage was more advanced in patients in cohort 2 [positive nodes in 52.3% vs. 36.7% (p = 0.002), and metastatic disease in 23.6% vs. 16.6% (p = 0.087)]. Conclusion: CRC patients in the pandemic cohort had a longer diagnostic and therapeutic delay and less patients were diagnosed because of CRC screening. In addition, patients with CRC during the pandemic needed non-elective treatment more frequently than patients in the control cohort, and their tumour stage tended to be more advanced.
Introducción: La pandemia de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 ha afectado al manejo de los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal (CCR). El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar el retraso diagnóstico, la sintomatología y el estadio de los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia con una cohorte histórica. Material y métodos: Los pacientes valorados en el comité multidisciplinar de CCR entre septiembre de 2019 y enero de 2020 (cohorte 1) se compararon con los presentados entre septiembre de 2020 y marzo de 2021 (cohorte 2). Resultados: Trescientos ochenta y nueve pacientes fueron incluidos, 169 en la cohorte 1 y 220 en la cohorte 2. El cribado del CCR y la anemia fueron las causas que llevaron al diagnóstico en más pacientes en la cohorte 1 y 2, respectivamente (p < 0,001). El retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico fue mayor en la cohorte 2 (6,4 [IC 95%: 5,8-6,9] vs. 4,8 [IC 95%: 4,3-5,3] meses, p < 0,001). En la cohorte pandémica hubo más pacientes que requirieron tratamiento urgente (15,5% vs. 9,5%, p = 0,080). El estadio tumoral fue más avanzado en la cohorte 2 (ganglios positivos en el 52,3% vs. 36,7% [p = 0,002] y enfermedad metastásica en el 23,6% vs. 16,6% [p = 0,087]). Conclusión: Los pacientes con CCR en la cohorte pandémica tenían un retraso diagnóstico y terapéutico más largo, y menos pacientes fueron diagnosticados en el cribado de CCR. Además, los pacientes con CCR durante la pandemia necesitaron tratamiento urgente con más frecuencia y su estadio tumoral fue más avanzado.
RESUMEN
La fístula de ano es una entidad frecuente, cuyo origen más comúnmente aceptado es infeccioso. La clasificación más utilizada se basa en la teoría criptoglandular y en la situación del trayecto fistuloso en relación con el esfínter anal. La evaluación física permitirá orientar el tipo de fístula y planificar su tratamiento. Los métodos complementarios de investigación más utilizados son la ecografía endoanal y la resonancia magnética nuclear. Se revisan las opciones terapéuticas y sus resultados, en especial la fistulotomía, el colgajo endorrectal de avance, el uso de sedales, el colgajo de avance anocutáneo, la esfinterorrafia con reconstrucción esfinteriana y el empleo de adhesivos de fibrina (AU)
Anal fistula is a frequent condition. The most commonly accepted origin is infectious. The most widely used classification is based on cryptoglandular theory and on the position of the fistulous tract in relation to the anal sphincter. Physical examination will help to identify the type of fistula and allow its treatment to be planned. The most widely used complementary tests are endoanal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. We review the various therapeutic options and their results, especially fistulotomy, endorectal advancement flap, use of sedal, anodermal advancement flap, sphincterorrhaphy with sphincter repair, and fibrin glue (AU)
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Fístula Rectal/cirugía , Incontinencia Fecal/etiología , Adhesivo de Tejido de Fibrina/uso terapéutico , Canal Anal/cirugía , Fístula Rectal/etiologíaRESUMEN
Anal fistula is a frequent condition. The most commonly accepted origin is infectious. The most widely used classification is based on cryptoglandular theory and on the position of the fistulous tract in relation to the anal sphincter. Physical examination will help to identify the type of fistula and allow its treatment to be planned. The most widely used complementary tests are endoanal ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging. We review the various therapeutic options and their results, especially fistulotomy, endorectal advancement flap, use of sedal, anodermal advancement flap, sphincterorrhaphy with sphincter repair, and fibrin glue.