Category: Medicine Hat News

Posted on

Five Things You Should Know About Proctalgia Fugax (Pain in the Butt)

After a sleepless night. (iStockphoto)
After a sleepless night. (iStockphoto)

Proctalgia fugax was first described in Ancient Rome over 2000 years ago and still carries the Latin name which translates to “fleeting rectal pain.” I wrote about this some years ago. If you go to my website (nbharwani.com) and search proctalgia fugax, you will find that this is the most discussed article – more than 100 people have shared their experience with this condition.

Because of my interest in this, my attention was drawn to an article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ March 19 2013) titled “Five things you should know about proctalgia fugax.”

First thing you should know is proctalgia fugax has many triggers. There are episodes of sharp fleeting pain that recur over weeks, are localized to the anus or lower rectum, and last from seconds to several minutes with no pain between episodes. The authors of the article say that there are numerous precipitants including sexual activity, stress, constipation, defecation and menstruation, although the condition can occur without a trigger.

Second thing you should know is proctalgia fugax is common. In the general population, the prevalence of the condition may be as high as eight to 18 per cent. Seventy five per cent are women. It usually affects patients between 30 and 60 years of age.

Third thing you should know is that anal sphincter spasm may cause the pain in proctalgia fugax. The authors say that although the cause of proctalgia fugax is unclear, spasm of the anal sphincter is commonly implicated. It may occur after sclerotherapy for hemorrhoids and vaginal hysterectomy. Stress, anxiety and irritable bowel syndrome may be associated with proctalgia fugax.

Fourth thing you should know is proctalgia fugax is a diagnosis of exclusion. That means there is no test to tell if the person is suffering from this condition. We have to exclude common painful conditions of anus and rectum before we can say a person is suffering from proctalgia fugax. These conditions are: hemorrhoids, cryptitis, ischemia, abscess, fissure, rectocele and cancer.

Finally, the fifth thing you should know about this condition is that the treatments are geared towards relaxing the anal sphincter spasm. These treatments are: oral diltiazem, topical glyceryl nitrate (gives you headache), nerve blocks and salbutamol act by relaxing the anal sphincter spasm. But these treatments are not very effective.

Persistent symptoms require thorough investigations of anal and rectal areas and if no pathology is found then reassurance to patient is very important. There is no known effective treatment for this condition. There are anecdotal reports of benefit from trying any of the following treatments:
-Reassurance and warm baths
-Topical glyceryl trinitrate 0.1 per cent or diltiazem two per cent whenever required
-Salbutamol inhalation 200µg regular three times a day or whenever required
-Warm water enema at the time of symptoms
-Clonidine 150µg twice a day
-Local anesthetic block or botulinum toxin injection
-Help to relieve anxiety and stress

Start reading the preview of my book A Doctor's Journey for free on Amazon. Available on Kindle for $2.99!

Posted on

Oops! What did your surgeon forget in your body?

Nurse handing instrument to surgeon. (Jupiterimages)
Nurse handing instrument to surgeon. (Jupiterimages)

OK, don’t worry. It is not that common. In an article published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons (January 2013) titled, “Retained Surgical Items: A Problem Yet to Be Solved,” by Stanislaw P.A. Stawicki, MD, and others says retained surgical items (RSI) continue to occur. But the exact numbers are difficult to document due to the low frequency of RSI in a single institution and due to the medicolegal implications.

Literature suggests retained surgical items have traditionally been estimated to occur at a rate of 0.3 to 1.0 per 1,000 abdominal operations, and approximately 1 in 8,000 to 18,000 of all inpatient operations.

Seven teaching institutions were invited to participate in this retrospective, multicenter, case-control study of RSI risk factors was conducted between January 2003 and December 2009. Fifty-nine RSIs and 118 matched controls were analyzed (RSI incidence 1 in 6,975 or 59 in 411,526). Retained surgical items occurred despite use of confirmatory x-rays (13 of 27 instances) and/or radiofrequency tagging (2 of 32 instances).

The researchers concluded:
-higher body mass index

-unexpected intraoperative events
-longer procedure duration and
-occurrence of any safety omissions like an incorrect count were associated with increased RSI risk.

Trainee presence was associated with 70 per cent lower RSI risk compared with trainee absence. The researchers are not sure why this would be the case. This requires further study. They further say, “Our findings highlight the need for zero tolerance for safety omissions, continued study and development of novel approaches to RSI reduction, and establishing anonymous RSI reporting systems to better track both the incidence and risks associated with this problem, which has yet to be solved.”

As one can expect, the operating room is a complex environment where technology, team dynamics, potent pharmaceuticals, and technically difficult operations create high potential for adverse events.

The researchers highlight at least three major obstacles to reducing the incidence of RSI, including locating missing items identified by an incorrect count, reducing the rate of incorrectly-correct counts, and improving team attentiveness and compliance with safety procedures and documentation.

If you are having surgery in the near future then remember, the incidence of retained surgical items is extremely small. The people who work in the operating rooms are highly trained and dedicated and your safety, I am sure, is their first concern.

Start reading the preview of my book A Doctor's Journey for free on Amazon. Available on Kindle for $2.99!

Posted on

Circumcision: The Controversy Continues

Mother and son. (iStockphoto)
Mother and son. (iStockphoto)

“What advice should a physician give to parents considering whether or not to have their baby circumcised?” asks Dr. Jeff Blackmer. Dr. Blackmer is a Director of Ethics at the Canadian Medical Association (CMA). His column appears in the Bulletin of the CMA which is part of the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ February 5, 2013).

The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) evaluates scientific evidence and sets guidelines in matters affecting children’s health. Since 1996, CPS has advised physicians that circumcision of newborn should not be routinely performed as there was no medical benefit. This, of course, has not changed the practice. Some parents request circumcision for their sons for religious reasons or family tradition.

In August, 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) updated its 1999 policy on circumcision to say that there are some medical benefits to having the procedure. Circumcision lowers risk of urinary tract infection, cancer of the penis, and sexually transmitted infection. Blackmer says that CPS is reviewing the evidence and may release an updated statement.

In 2011, Dr. Noni MacDonald, Section Editor of CMAJ wrote an article in the CMAJ under the title, “Male circumcision: get the timing right.” (CMAJ April 19, 2011). Dr. Noni MacDonald is a Professor of Paediatrics and of Computer Science at Dalhousie University with a clinical appointment in Paediatric Infectious Diseases at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax Canada. She is the former Dean of Medicine at Dalhousie University.

“The most commonly performed surgical procedure in the world – male circumcision – is done for therapeutic, prophylactic, religious, cultural and social reasons. Discussions of male infant circumcision for health reasons are always split,” says MacDonald in her article.

Those who support circumcision say that there are significant potential health benefits including a decreased risk for some sexually transmitted infections, a decrease in HPV-related penile cancer and reduced phimosis and paraphimosis (tightness of the foreskin).

Those who oppose circumcision say that the procedure is not without likely complications – about 1.5 per cent – and it is a painful procedure for the newborn.
Medical organizations in western countries have discouraged infant circumcision for many years. MacDonald asks, “The question now is whether the findings from the randomized trials of adult male circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa that show circumcision halves the risk of acquiring HIV and decreases risk for HSV-2 (a herpes simplex virus that can cause genital herpes) and high-risk HPV in heterosexual African adult men push these organizations to change their positions on routine infant circumcision.”

MacDonald adds, “… none of the sub-Saharan African studies examined infant circumcision; all involved adult male circumcision. There is no new evidence that infant circumcision provides any added benefit to the neonate, infant or young child with respect to HIV and HPV protection. The potential benefit from circumcision only begins to accrue when the male becomes sexually active.”

The dilemma is: if the infant is not going to benefit from circumcision until he is sexually active then should we offer circumcision during peripubertal time? Would the male adolescent be willing to go through the procedure? Currently, infants have no choice. The choice for them is made by their parents.

The World Health Organization agrees there is evidence that male circumcision significantly reduces the risk of HIV acquisition by men during penile-vaginal sex, but also state that circumcision only provides partial protection and should not replace other interventions to prevent transmission of HIV.

Well, what is the conclusion? I will quote Dr. Blackmer from his ethics corner column mentioned earlier. It says, “Some parents will always choose circumcision, some will always reject it, and some will decide based solely on the evidence.” The only thing a physician can do is present the evidence and let the parents make the decision.

Start reading the preview of my book A Doctor's Journey for free on Amazon. Available on Kindle for $2.99!

Posted on

Preventing Cervical Cancer – New Guidelines Published in 2013

Pap smear micrograph showing a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). (Copyright 2010 Nephron. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.)
Pap smear micrograph showing a high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion (HSIL). (Copyright 2010 Nephron. Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this image under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.)

Every woman should know it is important to have regular Pap smear test. Since World War II, the test has been the most widely used and successful cancer screening technique in history. It is named after the Greek doctor who invented it – Dr. George Nicholas Papanicolaou.

An article in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ January 8, 2013) says, “The incidence of and mortality due to cervical cancer in Canada have decreased substantially in the past 50 years, and long-term survival rates after treatment are high. Lifetime incidence was 1.5 per cent in 1972, and is now 0.7 per cent; risk of death from cervical cancer is now 0.2 per cent. Most advanced cervical cancer (and associated mortality) occurs among women who have never undergone screening or who have had a long interval between Papanicolaou (Pap) tests.”

For example, in 2011, an estimated 1300 new cases of cervical cancer were diagnosed in Canada, with about 350 deaths. The risk increases after age 25 years and older, peaking during the fifth decade of life.

Pap smear test helps pick early lesions before they become cancerous. This means less invasive treatment is required and the prognosis is better. In the same issue of the CMAJ, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care has published new guidelines for Pap smear test. These guidelines, which are based on the current scientific evidence, are as follows:

-For women aged less than 20 years, no routine screening for cervical cancer. (Strong recommendation; high-quality evidence)

-For women aged 20-24 years, no routine screening for cervical cancer. (Weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence)

-For women aged 25-29 years, routine screening for cervical cancer every three years. (Weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence)

-For women aged 30-69 years, routine screening for cervical cancer every three years. (Strong recommendation; high-quality evidence)

-For women 70 years of age or older who have undergone adequate screening (i.e., three successive negative Pap test results in the last 10 yr), routine screening may stop. For all other women 70 years of age or older, should continue screening until three negative test results have been obtained. (Weak recommendation; low-quality evidence)

Where the recommendations are weak, the decision to undergo Pap smear test depends if the health care provider and the patient think that there is an indication to do one. If the woman is sexually active, she has multiple partners or she has sexually transmitted infection then there would be an indication to do one. One drawback with these updated recommendations is they do not address screening with tests for human papilloma virus (HPV), because there is not yet sufficient data on its effect on mortality and incidence of invasive cancer, says the article.

In a commentary related to the guidelines, Dr. Janet Dollin says, “When Dr. Georgios Papanicolaou developed his famous test in the 1940s, we did not know that cervical cancer is a preventable sexually transmitted infection.” The role of cancer causing virus like HPV was not known. We now know infection with specific strains of HPV is a necessary precursor to cervical cancer. Some of these viruses cause genital warts – another sexually transmitted infection.

Dr. Dollin says, “Indeed, improving uptake and access to HPV vaccination and cervical screening would do more to lower the rates of cervical cancer than deciding at what age to start Pap testing and how frequently it should be done.” The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) recommends the vaccination of boys and girls to prevent the burden of HPV disease.

Dr. Dollin says that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for women aged 21-65 years with a Pap every three years or, for women aged 30-65 years who want to lengthen the screening interval, a combination of Pap and HPV testing every five years.

Start reading the preview of my book A Doctor's Journey for free on Amazon. Available on Kindle for $2.99!