RESUMEN
Mucormycosis is an aggressive, fatal fungal infection. The fungal organisms are ubiquitous and easily affect immunocompromised patients. The main aim of this article is to emphasize over the knowledge of different diagnostic methods (diagnostic nasal endoscopy, ct/ contrast mri pns + orbit + brain, Wet KOH mount), the importance of practising an aggressive surgical resection, medical treatments (liposomal amphotericin B, amphotericin gel, tablet posaconazole, nasal douching, retrorbital amphotericin injection), suction cleaning and regular follow up of the patient after surgical management. This can greatly help in minimizing the recurrence of mucormycosis even in immunocompromised patients in a population. The study performed was a prospective study conducted from April 2021 to July 2021 in which we included 500 patients who presented to the OPD & Department of ENT or Emergency Department of Maharaja Yashwantrao Hospital with complaints suggestive of mucormycosis. The patients who were surgically fit were operated. Out of the 500 patients who were diagnosed with Mucormycosis, from April 2021 to July 2021 complete cure was achieved in 456 patients( 91.2%) and only 44 patients (8.8%) have shown recurrence due to various causes (specially those who did not came for regular follow up). Rhinorbital was the most common site to be involved. In the study it was found that most of the patients which showed recurrence were male, post covid and immunocompromised. Diabetes mellitus was found to be most common among immunocompromised patients. The recurrence in patients with mucormycosis can be minimise by educating the masses regarding importance of public and personal hygiene, and multidisciplinary management with regular follow up offers a better approach to treat this life-threatening condition. The study shows the importance of clinical diagnosis, concurrent surgical treatment, medical treatment, post op care, suction cleaning and regular follow up advice. It is necessary us to take the step forward in this regard, so that in the future we will be better prepared for such type of epidemic.
RESUMEN
This narrative review compares the advantages and drawbacks of imaging and other investigation modalities which currently assist with lung cancer diagnosis and staging, as well as those which are not routinely indicated for this. We examine plain film radiography, computed tomography (CT) (alone, as well as in conjunction with positron emission tomography (PET)), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ultrasound, and newer techniques such as image-guided bronchoscopy (IGB) and robotic bronchoscopy (RB). While a chest X-ray is the first-line imaging investigation in patients presenting with symptoms suggestive of lung cancer, it has a high positive predictive value (PPV) even after negative X-ray findings, which calls into question its value as part of a potential national screening programme. CT lowers the mortality for high-risk patients when compared to X-ray and certain scoring systems, such as the Brock model can guide the need for further imaging, like PET-CT, which has high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing solitary pulmonary nodules as malignant, as well as for assessing small cell lung cancer spread. In practice, PET-CT is offered to everyone whose lung cancer is to be treated with a curative intent. In contrast, MRI is only recommended for isolated distant metastases. Similarly, ultrasound imaging is not used for diagnosis of lung cancer but can be useful when there is suspicion of intrathoracic lymph node involvement. Ultrasound imaging in the form of endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS) is often used to aid tissue sampling, yet the diagnostic value of this technique varies widely between studies. RB is another novel technique that offers an alternative way to biopsy lesions, but further research on it is necessary. Lastly, thoracic surgical biopsies, particularly minimally invasive video-assisted techniques, have been used increasingly to aid in diagnosis and staging.
RESUMEN
A comprehensive review of relevant clinical literature on evidence-based recommendations and existing prediction models specific to lung cancer surgery was undertaken. Preoperative risk assessment parameters such as pulmonary function tests (PFT), cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET), Brunelli models, Thoracoscore and frailty were analyzed for predicting postoperative risk of complications. When assessing fitness for surgery, the primarily used PFT parameters such as predictive postoperative forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) and diffusion capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO ) showed conflicting evidence in determining a positive correlation with postoperative mortality. CPET variables predicted higher complication risk when VO2peak < 10ml/kg/min, AT < 11ml/kg/min and ventilation/carbon dioxide production (VE/VCO2) was in range of 34-40. While a cardiac risk index like the Thoracic Revised Cardiac Risk Index (ThRCRI) predicted major cardiovascular compromise, a thoracic risk index like Thoracoscore proved imprecise. Lastly, frailty is used to risk stratify patients in clinical practice but a recognized validated model specific to thoracic surgery is non-existent. When considering patients for lung cancer surgery, some dilemma exists regarding the accuracy of clinical prediction models and their external validation. There is a pressing need for the development of a consolidated clinically robust risk stratification model to predict complications after thoracic resections.