| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Worley, G., et al.
(författare)
-
Restorative surgery after colectomy for ulcerative colitis in England and Sweden: observations from a comparison of nationwide cohorts
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Colorectal Disease. - : WILEY. - 1462-8910 .- 1463-1318. ; 20:9, s. 804-812
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AimA longstanding disparity exists between the approaches to restorative surgery after colectomy for patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) in England and Sweden. This study aims to compare rates of colectomy and restorative surgery in comparable national cohorts. MethodThe English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Swedish National Patient Register (NPR) were interrogated between 2002 and April 2012. Patients with two diagnostic episodes for UC (age 15 years) were included. Patients were excluded if they had an episode of inflammatory bowel disease or colectomy before 2002. The cumulative incidences of colectomy and restorative surgery were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. ResultsA total of 98 691 patients were included in the study, 76 129 in England and 22 562 in Sweden. The 5-year cumulative incidence of all restorative surgery after colectomy in England was 33% vs 46% in Sweden (P-value amp;lt; 0.001). Of the patients undergoing restorative surgery, 92.3% of English patients had a pouch vs 38.8% in Sweden and 7.7% vs 59.1% respectively had an ileorectal anastomosis (IRA). The 5-year cumulative incidence of colectomy in this study cohort was 13% in England and 6% in Sweden (P-value amp;lt; 0.001). ConclusionFollowing colectomy for UC only one-third of English patients and half of Swedish patients underwent restorative surgery. In England nearly all these patients underwent pouches, in Sweden a less significant majority underwent IRAs. It is surprising to demonstrate this discrepancy in a comparable cohort of patients from similar healthcare systems. The causes and consequences of this international variation in management are not fully understood and require further investigation.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
- Lazarus, Jeffrey V., et al.
(författare)
-
A multinational Delphi consensus to end the COVID-19 public health threat
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite notable scientific and medical advances, broader political, socioeconomic and behavioural factors continue to undercut the response to the COVID-19 pandemic1,2. Here we convened, as part of this Delphi study, a diverse, multidisciplinary panel of 386 academic, health, non-governmental organization, government and other experts in COVID-19 response from 112 countries and territories to recommend specific actions to end this persistent global threat to public health. The panel developed a set of 41 consensus statements and 57 recommendations to governments, health systems, industry and other key stakeholders across six domains: communication; health systems; vaccination; prevention; treatment and care; and inequities. In the wake of nearly three years of fragmented global and national responses, it is instructive to note that three of the highest-ranked recommendations call for the adoption of whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches1, while maintaining proven prevention measures using a vaccines-plus approach2 that employs a range of public health and financial support measures to complement vaccination. Other recommendations with at least 99% combined agreement advise governments and other stakeholders to improve communication, rebuild public trust and engage communities3 in the management of pandemic responses. The findings of the study, which have been further endorsed by 184 organizations globally, include points of unanimous agreement, as well as six recommendations with >5% disagreement, that provide health and social policy actions to address inadequacies in the pandemic response and help to bring this public health threat to an end.
|
|
| 10. |
- Risto, Anton, et al.
(författare)
-
Colectomy reconstruction for ulcerative colitis in Sweden and England: a multicenter prospective comparison between ileorectal anastomosis and ileal pouch-anal anastomosis after colectomy in patients with ulcerative colitis. (CRUISE-study)
- 2023
-
Ingår i: BMC Surgery. - : BMC. - 1471-2482. ; 23:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThere are no prospective trials comparing the two main reconstructive options after colectomy for Ulcerative colitis, ileal pouch anal anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis. An attempt on a randomized controlled trial has been made but after receiving standardized information patients insisted on choosing operation themselves.MethodsAdult Ulcerative colitis patients subjected to colectomy eligible for both ileal pouch anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis are asked to participate and after receiving standardized information the get to choose reconstructive method. Patients declining reconstruction or not considered eligible for both methods will be followed as controls. The CRUISE study is a prospective, non-randomized, multi-center, open-label, controlled trial on satisfaction, QoL, function, and complications between ileal pouch anal anastomosis and ileorectal anastomosis.DiscussionReconstruction after colectomy is a morbidity-associated as well as a resource-intensive activity with the sole purpose of enhancing function, QoL and patient satisfaction. The aim of this study is to provide the best possible information on the risks and benefits of each reconstructive treatment.
|
|
