Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Colorectal cancer (1)
- Dentists (1)
- Lesions (1)
- Musculoskeletal problems (1)
- Posture analysis (1)
- Total colonoscopy (1)
- delay (1)
- dentist’s chair design (1)
- diagnosis (1)
- metastases (1)
Institute
- Medizin (3) (remove)
Purpose: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in Germany. Around 60,000 people were diagnosed CRC in 2016 in Germany. Since 2019, screening colonoscopies are offered in Germany for men by the age of 50 and for women by the age of 55. It is recently discussed if women should also undergo a screening colonoscopy by the age of 50 and if there are any predictors for getting CRC.
Methods: Colonoscopies of 1553 symptomatic patients younger than 55 years were compared with colonoscopies of 1075 symptomatic patients older than 55 years. We analyzed if there are any significant differences between those two groups in the prevalence of CRC and its precursor lesions or between symptomatic men and women. We evaluated if there is a correlation between abdominal symptoms and the prevalence of CRC.
Results: In 164/1553 symptomatic patients, 194 (12.5%) polyps were detected. In total, six colorectal carcinomas (0.4%) were detected. There were no significant differences between men and women. In symptomatic patients ≥ 55 years, significantly more polyps were found (p<0.0001; 26.6% vs. 12.5%). Totally, 286 polyps (26.6%) were removed in 1075 symptomatic patients older than 55 years. Anorectal bleeding was the only abdominal symptom being a significant indicator for the prevalence of the occurrence of colon and rectum cancer in both groups (p=0.03, OR=2.73 95%-CI [1.11;6.70]), but with only low sensitivity (44%).
Conclusion: Due to no significant differences in men and women, we recommend screening colonoscopies also for women by the age of 50.
Background; Musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are a common health problem among dentists. Dental treatment is mainly performed in a sitting position. The aim of the study was to quantify the effect of different ergonomic chairs on the sitting position. In addition, it was tested if the sitting position of experienced workers is different from a non-dental group.
Methods; A total of 59 (28 m/31f) subjects, divided into two dentist groups according to their work experience (students and dentists (9 m/11f) < 10 years, dentists (9 m/10f) ≥ 10 years) and a control group (10 m/10f) were measured. A three-dimensional back scanner captured the bare back of all subjects sitting on six dentist’s chairs of different design. Initially, inter-group comparisons per chair, firstly in the habitual and secondly in the working postures, were carried out. Furthermore, inter-chair comparison was conducted for the habitual as well as for the working postures of all subjects and for each group. Finally, a comparison between the habitual sitting posture and the working posture for each respective chair (intra-chair comparison) was conducted (for all subjects and for each group). In addition, a subjective assessment of each chair was made.
For the statistical analysis, non-parametric tests were conducted and the level of significance was set at 5%.
Results: When comparing the three subject groups, all chairs caused a more pronounced spinal kyphosis in experienced dentists. In both conditions (habitual and working postures), a symmetrical sitting position was assumed on each chair.
The inter-chair comparisons showed no differences regarding the ergonomic design of the chairs. The significances found in the inter-chair comparisons were all within the measurementerror and could, therefore, be classified as clinically irrelevant.
The intra-chair comparison (habitual sitting position vs. working sitting position) illustrated position-related changes in the sagittal, but not in the transverse, plane. These changes were only position-related (forward leaned working posture) and were not influenced by the ergonomic sitting design of the respective chair. There are no differences between the groups in the subjective assessment of each chair.
Conclusions; Regardless of the group or the dental experience, the ergonomic design of the dentist’s chair had only a marginal influence on the upper body posture in both the habitual and working sitting postures. Consequently, the focus of the dentist’s chair, in order to minimize MSD, should concentrate on adopting a symmetrical sitting posture rather than on its ergonomic design.
Patients with neuroendocrine tumors (NET) often go through a long phase between onset of symptoms and initial diagnosis. Assessment of time to diagnosis and pre-clinical pathway in patients with gastroenteropancreatic NET (GEP-NET) with regard to metastases and symptoms. Retrospective analysis of patients with GEP-NET at a tertiary referral center from 1984 to 2019; inclusion criteria: Patients ≥18 years, diagnosis of GEP-NET; statistical analysis using non-parametrical methods. Four hundred eighty-six patients with 488 tumors were identified; median age at first diagnosis (478/486, 8 unknown) was 59 years; 52.9% male patients. Pancreatic NET: 143/488 tumors; 29.3%; small intestinal NET: 145/488 tumors, 29.7%. 128/303 patients (42.2%) showed NET specific and 122/486 (25%) patients other tumor-specific symptoms. 222/279 patients had distant metastases at initial diagnosis (187/222 liver metastases). 154/488 (31.6%) of GEP-NET were incidental findings. Median time from tumor manifestation (e.g., symptoms related to NET) to initial diagnosis across all entities was 19.5 (95% CI: 12–28) days. No significant difference in patients with or without distant metastases (median 73 vs 105 days, P = .42). A large proportion of GEP-NET are incidental findings and only about half of all patients are symptomatic at the time of diagnosis. We did not find a significant influence of the presence of metastases on time to diagnosis, which shows a large variability with a median of <30 days.