Outcome of simple use of mechanical lithotripsy of difficult common bile duct stones

Clinical predictors of severe gallbladder complications in acute acalculous cholecystitis

Benign esophageal lesions have a wide spectrum of clinical and pathologic features. Understanding the endoscopic and pathologic features of esophageal lesions is essential for their detection, differential diagnosis, and management. The purpose of this review is to provide updated features that may help physicians to appropriately manage these esophageal lesions. The endoscopic features of 2997 patients are reviewed. In epithelial lesions, the frequency of occurrence was in the following order: glycogenic acanthosis, heterotopic gastric mucosa, squamous papilloma, hyperplastic polyp, ectopic sebaceous gland and xanthoma. In subepithelial lesions, the order was as follows: hemangioma, leiomyoma, dysphagia aortica and granular cell tumor. Most benign esophageal lesions can be diagnosed according to their endoscopic appearance and findings on routine biopsy, and submucosal lesions, by endoscopic resection. Management is generally based upon the confidence of diagnosis and whether the lesion causes symptoms. We suggest endoscopic resection of all granular cell tumors and squamous papillomas because, while rare, these lesions have malignant potential. Dysphagia aortica should be considered in the differential diagnosis of dysphagia in the elderly.

Background: To compare the differences in dose-volume data among coplanar intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), noncoplanar IMRT, and helical tomotherapy (HT) among patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Methods: Nine patients with unresectable HCC and PVT underwent step and shoot coplanar IMRT with intent to deliver 46 - 54 Gy to the tumor and portal vein. The volume of liver received 30Gy was set to keep less than 30% of whole normal liver (V30 < 30%). The mean dose to at least one side of kidney was kept below 23 Gy, and 50 Gy as for stomach. The maximum dose was kept below 47 Gy for spinal cord. Several parameters including mean hepatic dose, percent volume of normal liver with radiation dose at X Gy (Vx), uniformity index, conformal index, and doses to organs at risk were evaluated from the dose-volume histogram. Results: HT provided better uniformity for the planning-target volume dose coverage than both IMRT techniques. The noncoplanar IMRT technique reduces the V10 to normal liver with a statistically significant level as compared to HT. The constraints for the liver in the V30 for coplanar IMRT vs. noncoplanar IMRT vs. HT could be reconsidered as 21% vs. 17% vs. 17%, respectively. When delivering 50 Gy and 60-66 Gy to the tumor bed, the constraints of mean dose to the normal liver could be less than 20 Gy and 25 Gy, respectively. Conclusion: Noncoplanar IMRT and HT are potential techniques of radiation therapy for HCC patients with PVT. Constraints for the liver in IMRT and HT could be stricter than for 3DCRT.

AIM: To investigate acute transient hepatocellular injury in patients with cholelithiasis and cholecystitis but no evidence of choledocholithiasis.