RESUMO
Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome is a rare source of claudication in young people. We present the case of a 15-year-old male athlete who presented with intermittent numbness of his right foot with exertion. Imaging revealed classic compression from a right type III popliteal artery entrapment. The left popliteal artery was chronically occluded with a large collateral vessel. He underwent release of the accessory bands of the gastrocnemius muscle with significant arteriolysis on the right side via a posterior approach. Chronic popliteal artery entrapment can be treated from a posterior approach, resulting in arterial occlusion and will be asymptomatic if well collateralized.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer screening improved outcomes for patients diagnosed between the age of 45-75. Present life expectancy is beyond this limit, yet there are no guidelines for these ages. We aim to identify outcomes after screening and intervention in patients ≥75 years and correlate with frailty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Records between 2011 and 2019 were queried. Patients ≥75 screened and treated for colorectal cancer were included. Patient demographics, perioperative mortality, age at last colonoscopy and frailty score were calculated. A Modified Frailty Index from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Frailty Index was used. A score of 1 to 11 was calculated based on patient comorbidities. The MFI was assigned from 0 to 11: 0 signified absence of frailty and 11 indicated maximum frailty. RESULTS: Of 179 patients were identified, 46.3% males. 171(95%) had elective and 8 (5%) had emergent surgery. The average age was 81.8 years. All colonoscopies were performed for symptoms. A modified frailty index was retrospectively calculated; 75% of patients scored between 0 and 2 and 1% scored >6. CONCLUSION: Older patients who underwent colonoscopy and surgery for symptomatic colon cancer had a low mortality, 2%. The average age was 6.8 years older than the recommended cutoff for colonoscopy screening. Most patients scored 0 to 2 on the modified frailty index, suggesting that not only are older patients more fit than previously thought, but also able to tolerate colorectal interventions more liberally. Utilizing frailty indices to identify screening patterns beyond 75 years of age might prove beneficial for this patient population. Further studies are recommended.
Assuntos
Neoplasias Colorretais , Fragilidade , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Canadá/epidemiologia , Criança , Neoplasias Colorretais/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorretais/epidemiologia , Neoplasias Colorretais/cirurgia , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Feminino , Fragilidade/diagnóstico , Fragilidade/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the demographics and subjective rationale for failure to present for retrieval of patients who had an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placed. METHODS: Between January 1, 2010, and September 12, 2017, there were 242 patients who had retrievable IVC filters placed. Demographics and indications for filter placement were retrospectively analyzed. All patients who failed to have the filter retrieved were contacted by Institutional Review Board-approved telephone survey to delineate the reason that the filter was not removed. RESULTS: Of 242 patients with IVC filters placed, 53 (22%) patients presented for filter retrieval at Abington-Jefferson Health. Patients who presented for filter retrieval were statistically younger (46 years vs 65 years; P < .001). The most common indication for filter placement in both groups was preoperative placement for bariatric surgery, but this percentage was higher in the group that presented for filter retrieval (70% [37/53] in the retrieved group vs 47% [88/189] in the nonretrieved group; P = .018). After telephone survey that reached 146 patients, it was determined that 46 (32%) patients who did not return for filter retrieval were told to keep the filter in place secondary to comorbidities, 28 (19%) did not remember being instructed to follow up for retrieval, and 18 (12%) did not want another procedure. Twenty-four patients were deceased at the time of telephone survey (16%). The remainder of the patients had the filter removed at an outside institution or gave another reason. CONCLUSIONS: Our study documented a disappointingly low rate of filter retrieval. Patients with IVC filters who failed to present for retrieval were more likely to be older and frequently did not understand the complications of leaving a filter in place and the need to have the filter retrieved. Patient education should be increased to better capture patients with IVC filters and to improve retrieval rates, but our study showed that a significant percentage of patients do not have filters retrieved because of comorbidities or they do not want another procedure.