Colonic Volvulus in the United States

2014 ◽  
Vol 259 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wissam J. Halabi ◽  
Mehraneh D. Jafari ◽  
Celeste Y. Kang ◽  
Vinh Q. Nguyen ◽  
Joseph C. Carmichael ◽  
...  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin R. Kasten ◽  
Peter W. Marcello ◽  
Todd D. Francone

Colonic volvulus accounts for 3 to 5% of bowel obstructions in the United States. Current data reveal sigmoid volvulus as the most common colonic volvulus, followed by volvulus of the cecum, transverse colon, and splenic fixture. Despite a low incidence in the United States, diagnosis, management, and patient outcome depend on an appropriate index of suspicion and adherence to the proposed algorithm highlighting the approach to the patient with colonic volvulus. This review outlines the definition, pathogenesis, and epidemiology of colonic volvulus, as well as its clinical evaluation and treatment. Tables review the demographics of colonic volvulus in the United States, the differential diagnosis of and risk factors for colonic volvulus, important radiographic findings in colonic volvulus, and nonoperative management of sigmoid volvulus. Figures show the types of ileosigmoid knot; plain radiographs of cecal,  sigmoid, transverse, and splenic flexure volvulus; contrast enema of cecal, transverse, splenic flexure, and sigmoid volvulus; cross-sectional abdominal imaging of cecal, sigmoid, and transverse colon volvulus and ileosigmoid knot; endoscopic evaluation in sigmoid volvulus; use of an esophageal overtube for placement of a rectal tube; necrotic cecum and transverse colon volvulus in the operating suite; and sigmoid volvulus in an elderly gentleman. This review contains 14 figures, 5 tables, and 158 references.


Author(s):  
A. Hakam ◽  
J.T. Gau ◽  
M.L. Grove ◽  
B.A. Evans ◽  
M. Shuman ◽  
...  

Prostate adenocarcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of men in the United States and is the third leading cause of death in men. Despite attempts at early detection, there will be 244,000 new cases and 44,000 deaths from the disease in the United States in 1995. Therapeutic progress against this disease is hindered by an incomplete understanding of prostate epithelial cell biology, the availability of human tissues for in vitro experimentation, slow dissemination of information between prostate cancer research teams and the increasing pressure to “ stretch” research dollars at the same time staff reductions are occurring.To meet these challenges, we have used the correlative microscopy (CM) and client/server (C/S) computing to increase productivity while decreasing costs. Critical elements of our program are as follows:1) Establishing the Western Pennsylvania Genitourinary (GU) Tissue Bank which includes >100 prostates from patients with prostate adenocarcinoma as well as >20 normal prostates from transplant organ donors.


Author(s):  
Vinod K. Berry ◽  
Xiao Zhang

In recent years it became apparent that we needed to improve productivity and efficiency in the Microscopy Laboratories in GE Plastics. It was realized that digital image acquisition, archiving, processing, analysis, and transmission over a network would be the best way to achieve this goal. Also, the capabilities of quantitative image analysis, image transmission etc. available with this approach would help us to increase our efficiency. Although the advantages of digital image acquisition, processing, archiving, etc. have been described and are being practiced in many SEM, laboratories, they have not been generally applied in microscopy laboratories (TEM, Optical, SEM and others) and impact on increased productivity has not been yet exploited as well.In order to attain our objective we have acquired a SEMICAPS imaging workstation for each of the GE Plastic sites in the United States. We have integrated the workstation with the microscopes and their peripherals as shown in Figure 1.


2001 ◽  
Vol 15 (01) ◽  
pp. 53-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Rehfeld

Every ten years, the United States “constructs” itself politically. On a decennial basis, U.S. Congressional districts are quite literally drawn, physically constructing political representation in the House of Representatives on the basis of where one lives. Why does the United States do it this way? What justifies domicile as the sole criteria of constituency construction? These are the questions raised in this article. Contrary to many contemporary understandings of representation at the founding, I argue that there were no principled reasons for using domicile as the method of organizing for political representation. Even in 1787, the Congressional district was expected to be far too large to map onto existing communities of interest. Instead, territory should be understood as forming a habit of mind for the founders, even while it was necessary to achieve other democratic aims of representative government.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document