RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in developing countries may uncover etiopathogenic factors. We investigated IBD prevalence in Brazil by investigating its geographic, spatial, and temporal distribution, and attempted to identify factors associated with its recent increase. METHODS: A drug prescription database was queried longitudinally to identify patients and verify population distribution and density, race, urbanicity, sanitation, and Human Development Index. Prevalence was calculated using the number of IBD patients and the population estimated during the same decade. Data were matched to indices using linear regression analyses. RESULTS: We identified 162 894 IBD patients, 59% with ulcerative colitis (UC) and 41% with Crohn's disease (CD). The overall prevalence of IBD was 80 per 100 000, with 46 per 100 000 for UC and 36 per 100 000 for CD. Estimated rates adjusted to total population showed that IBD more than triplicated from 2008 to 2017. The distribution of IBD demonstrated a South-to-North gradient that generally followed population apportionment. However, marked regional differences and disease clusters were identified that did not fit with conventionally accepted IBD epidemiological associations, revealing that the rise of IBD was variable. In some areas, loss of biodiversity was associated with high IBD prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: When distribution is considered in the context of IBD prevalence, marked regional differences become evident. Despite a background of Westernization, hotspots of IBD are recognized that are not explained by population density, urbanicity, sanitation, or other indices but apparently are explained by biodiversity loss. Thus, the rise of IBD in developing countries is not uniform, but rather is one that varies depending on yet unexplored factors like geoecological conditions.
The analysis of a large population of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients in a developing country reveals that the rising prevalence of IBD is not uniform and is linked to factors not traditionally associated with IBD, such as geosocial features and loss of biodiversity.
Assuntos
Colite Ulcerativa , Doença de Crohn , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais , Humanos , Países em Desenvolvimento , Incidência , Colite Ulcerativa/epidemiologia , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/epidemiologia , Doença de Crohn/epidemiologia , Prevalência , Doença Crônica , BiodiversidadeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cholelithiasis (ChL) is common after bariatric surgery (BS). Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC), the preferential treatment, is usually recommended only to symptomatic patients. LC may be, however, beneficial to asymptomatic patients as well. A prerequisite to such a policy is that it must be safe. This study aimed to assess whether, in post-bariatric (Post-Bar) patients who develop gallstones, LC achieves the same results as those reported in the general population. METHODS: A cohort of 376 patients undergoing elective LC had their medical records reviewed. Patients were divided into non-bariatric (Non-Bar) and Post-Bar groups, and then compared for characteristics and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: The study included 367 patients, 292 Non-Bar and 75 Post-Bar. Considering characteristics, Post-Bar patients were younger (44.5 ± 11.8 vs 48.4 ± 14.1) and less symptomatic (2.4% vs 19.8%) and had a higher BMI (32.2 ± 4.8 vs 30.8 ± 4.4) than Non-Bar patients. Regarding surgical outcomes, mortality (none), morbidity (1%, only in Non-Bar patients), readmission (1%, only in Non-Bar patients), conversion to laparotomy (0.6%, only in Non-Bar patients) showed no difference between the groups. Operative time (42.6 ± 14.4 min in Non-Bar and 38.2 ± 12.6 min in Post-Bar patients) tended to be lower in Post-Bar patients, p = 0.054. Same-day discharge was higher in Post-Bar patients (98.6%) than in Non-Bar patients (90.4%), p = 0.03. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Non-Bar patients, LC in Post-Bar patients showed not only similar morbimortality, readmissions, and conversions but also even a higher same-day discharge rate and a trend to lower operative times.
Assuntos
Cirurgia Bariátrica , Colecistectomia Laparoscópica , Cálculos Biliares , Laparoscopia , Obesidade Mórbida , Cirurgia Bariátrica/efeitos adversos , Colecistectomia , Colecistectomia Laparoscópica/efeitos adversos , Cálculos Biliares/cirurgia , Humanos , Obesidade Mórbida/cirurgia , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/etiologiaRESUMO
Crohn's disease is a chronic, inflammatory bowel condition that can affect the entire digestive tract and in many cases lead to enteric fistula formation. The management of enteric fistulas can be challenging and often requires a multidisciplinary approach.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Abdominal perineal excision (APE) has been associated with a high risk of positive circumferential resection margin (CRM+) and local recurrence rates in the treatment of rectal cancer. An alternative extralevator approach (ELAPE) has been suggested to improve the quality of resection by avoiding coning of the specimen decreasing the risk of tumor perforation and CRM+. The aim of this study is to compare the quality of the resected specimen and postoperative complication rates between ELAPE and "standard" APE. METHODS: All patients between 1998 and 2014 undergoing abdominal perineal excision for primary or recurrent rectal cancer at a single Institution were reviewed. Between 1998 and 2008, all patients underwent standard APE. In 2009 ELAPE was introduced at our Institution and all patients requiring APE underwent this alternative procedure (ELAPE). The groups were compared according to pathological characteristics, specimen quality (CRM status, perforation and failure to provide the rectum and anus in a single specimen-fragmentation) and postoperative morbidity. RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent standard APEs, while 22 underwent ELAPE. There were no differences in CRM+ (10.6 vs. 13.6%; p = 0.70) or tumor perforation rates (8 vs. 0%; p = 0.30) between APE and ELAPE. However, ELAPE were less likely to result in a fragmented specimen (42 vs. 4%; p = 0.002). Advanced pT-stage was also a risk factor for specimen fragmentation (p = 0.03). There were no differences in severe (Grade 3/4) postoperative morbidity (13 vs. 10%; p = 0.5). Perineal wound dehiscences were less frequent among ELAPE (52 vs 13%; p < 0.01). Despite short follow-up (median 21 mo.), 2-year local recurrence-free survival was better for patients undergoing ELAPE when compared to APE (87 vs. 49%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: ELAPE may be safely implemented into routine clinical practice with no increase in postoperative morbidity and considerable improvements in the quality of the resected specimen of patients with low rectal cancers.