Methods: A parallel randomised controlled single blinded study was conducted with a sample size of 70 patients who were randomised into two groups. One group underwent MRM using ultrasonic dissector (Group A) and the other one using electrocautery (Group B). Intra- and post-operative outcomes were compared.
Results: Group A had an average operating time of 30.86 min, which was statistically less than that of Group B. The mean mop count and the daily drain output in Group A were less as compared to Group B and the differences were statistically significant. Drain was removed early in Group A as compared to Group B. However, post-operative pain scores and seroma formation were not statistically significant among the two groups.
Conclusion: Ultrasonic dissector group had significantly lesser intra-operative bleeding, operating time and post-operative drain output when compared to electrocautery group. However, the two groups had no significant difference in post-operative pain scores and seroma formation.
METHODS: We conducted a study on 34 patients with HRP and randomly assigned the patients to two treatment arm groups (n=17). The formalin group underwent 4% formalin dab and another session 4 weeks later. The irrigation group self-administered daily rectal irrigation at home for 8 weeks and consumed oral metronidazole and ciprofloxacin during the first one week. We measured the patients' symptoms and endoscopic findings before and after total of 8 weeks of treatment in both groups.
RESULTS: Our study showed that HRP patients had reduced per rectal bleeding (p = 0.003) in formalin group, whereas irrigation group showed reduced diarrhoea (p=0.018) and tenesmus (p=0.024) symptoms. The comparison between the two treatment arms showed that irrigation technique was better than formalin technique for tenesmus (p=0.043) symptom only.
CONCLUSION: This novel treatment showed benefit in treating HRP. It could be a new treatment option which is safe and conveniently self-administered at home or used as a combination with other therapies to improve the treatment outcome for HRP.
.
Case Report: We report the case of a 58-year-old woman who presented to us with a chief complaint of recurrent right-sided epistaxis and nasal blockage for the past 4 months, which was progressively worsening. Histopathological examination confirmed the presence of a REAH instead of a sinonasal malignancy. The tumor was surgically excised from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery under endoscopic guidance. The patient was then carefully followed-up after surgery, and the wound was successfully healed 3 months after the initial surgery. There was no evidence of recurrence 6 months after the initial surgery.
Conclusion: This case demonstrates the rare presentation of a REAH, which had arisen from the lateral nasal wall. Clinically, it is difficult to distinguish a REAH from a more notorious mass such as a sinonasal malignancy. Therefore, biopsy is mandatory in all cases of lateral nasal mass in order to rule out malignancy before confirming nasal REAH. Fortunately, as seen in this case, a lateral nasal REAH, once diagnosed, can be safely and easily removed from the lateral nasal wall using electrocautery with good surgical outcomes and a low rate of recurrence.
Objective: To provide an update on the current understanding, evaluation, and management of penile warts.
Methods: A PubMed search was completed in Clinical Queries using the key terms 'penile warts' and 'genital warts'. The search strategy included meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, observational studies, and reviews.
Results: Penile warts are caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), notably HPV-6 and HPV-11. Penile warts typically present as asymptomatic papules or plaques. Lesions may be filiform, exophytic, papillomatous, verrucous, hyperkeratotic, cerebriform, fungating, or cauliflower-like. Approximately one-third of penile warts regress without treatment and the average duration prior to resolution is approximately 9 months. Active treatment is preferable to watchful observation to speed up clearance of the lesions and to assuage fears of transmission and autoinoculation. Patient-administered therapies include podofilox (0.5%) solution or gel, imiquimod 3.75 or 5% cream, and sinecatechins (polypheron E) 15% ointment. Clinician-administered therapies include podophyllin, cryotherapy, bichloroacetic or trichloroacetic acid, oral cimetidine, surgical excision, electrocautery, and carbon dioxide laser therapy. Patients who do not respond to first-line treatments may respond to other therapies or a combination of treatment modalities. Second-line therapies include topical/intralesional/intravenous cidofovir, topical 5-fluorouracil, and topical ingenol mebutate.
Conclusion: No single treatment has been shown to be consistently superior to other treatment modalities. The choice of the treatment method should depend on the physician's comfort level with the various treatment options, the patient's preference and tolerability of treatment, and the number and severity of lesions. The comparative efficacy, ease of administration, adverse effects, cost, and availability of the treatment modality should also be taken into consideration.