• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Mon, 22.07.24

Search results


May 2011
G. Lahat, N. Lubezky, M. Ben Haim, I. Nachmany, A. Blachar, I. Santo, R. Nakache and J.M. Klausner
January 2010
B. Boursi, H. Guzner-Gur, Y. Mashich, U. Miler, E. Gur, R. Inbar, A. Blachar, F. Sperber, S. Kleiman, A. Yafo, H. Elran, T. Sella, I. Naumov, D. Kazanov, S. Kraus, L. Galazan, N. Reshef, T. Sion-Tadmor, M. Rozen, E. Liberman, M. Moshkowitz and N. Arber

Background: Cancer is a leading cause of mortality worldwide. The most effective way to combat cancer is by prevention and early detection.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of screening an asymptomatic population for the presence of benign and neoplastic lesions.

Methods: Routine screening tests for prevention and/or early detection of 11 common cancers were conducted in 300 consecutive asymptomatic, apparently healthy adults, aged 25–77 years. Other tests were performed as indicated.

Results: Malignant and benign lesions were found in 3.3% and 5% of the screenees, respectively, compared to 1.7% in the general population. The most common lesions were in the gastrointestinal tract followed by skin, urogenital tract and breast. Advanced age and a family history of a malignancy were associated with increased risk for cancer with an odds ratio of 9 and 3.5, respectively (95% confidence interval 1.1–71 and 0.9–13, respectively). Moreover, high serum C-reactive protein levels and polymorphisms in the APC and CD24 genes indicated high cancer risk. When two of the polymorphisms existed in an individual, the risk for a malignant lesion was extremely high (23.1%; OR[1] 14, 95% CI[2] 2.5–78).

Conclusions: Screening asymptomatic subjects identifies a significant number of neoplastic lesions at an early stage. Incorporating data on genetic polymorphisms in the APC and CD24 genes can further identify individuals who are at increased risk for cancer. Cancer can be prevented and/or diagnosed at an early stage using the screening facilities of a multidisciplinary outpatient clinic.






[1] OR = odds ratio

[2] CI = confidence interval


September 2009
June 2009
Y. Shoenfeld, J. Shemer, G. Keren, Y. Blachar, L.A. Eidelman and M. Borow
October 2008
A. Blachar, G. Levi, M. Graif and J.acob Sosna

Background: Computed tomographic colonography, also known as virtual colonoscopy, is a rapid, non-invasive imaging technique for the detection of colorectal masses and polyps that is becoming increasingly popular.

Objectives: To evaluate the availability, technique, standards of performance and indications for CT colonography in Israel.

Methods: A questionnaire on CT colonography was sent to all radiology departments and private institutions that perform CTC[1] in Israel. We evaluated multiple technical parameters regarding the performance and interpretation of CTC as well as radiologists' training and experience.

Results: Fourteen institutions – 7 hospitals and 7 private clinics – participated in the study. Most of the small radiology departments and nearly all of the more peripheral radiology departments do not perform CTC studies. Since 2000 and until March 2007, a total of 15,165 CTC studies were performed but only 14% (2123 examinations) were performed at public hospitals and 86% (13,042 exams) at private clinics. CTC was performed after an incomplete colonoscopy or for various contraindications to endoscopic colonoscopy in up to a third of cases. In the various institutions patients were self-referred in 20–60% of cases, more commonly in private clinics. All CTC examinations were performed on 16–64 slice CT scanners and only a small minority was performed on 4-slice scanners in 2001. All but one center used low radiation protocols. Nearly all facilities used a 2 day bowel-cleansing protocol. All except one facility did not use stool tagging or computer-aided diagnosis. All facilities inflated the colon with room air manually. All institutions used state-of-the-art workstations, 3D and endoluminal navigation, and coronal multi-planar reconstructions routinely. There are 18 radiologists in the country who perform and interpret CTC studies; half of them trained abroad. Ten of the radiologists (56%) have read more than 500 CTC studies.

Conclusions: In Israel, CTC examinations are performed by well-trained and highly experienced radiologists using the latest CT scanners and workstations and adhering to acceptable CTC guidelines.  






[1] CTC = computed tomographic colonography


October 2007
G. Levy, L. Goldstein, A. Blachar, S. Apter, E. Barenboim, Y. Bar-Dayan, A. Shamis and E. Atar

A thorough medical inquiry is included in every aviation mishap investigation. While the gold standard of this investigation is a forensic pathology examination, numerous reports stress the important role of computed tomography in the postmortem evaluation of trauma victims. To characterize the findings identified by postmortem CT and compare its performance to conventional autopsy in victims of military aviation mishaps, we analyzed seven postmortem CT examinations. Musculoskeletal injuries accounted for 57.8% of traumatic findings, identified by postmortem CT. The most frequent findings were fractures of the rib (47%), skull (9.6%) and facial bones (8.6%). Abnormally located air accounted for 24% of findings, for which CT was superior (3.5% detected by autopsy, 100% by postmortem CT, P < 0.001).  The performance of autopsy in detecting injuries was superior (autopsy detected 85.8% of all injuries, postmortem CT detected 53.9%, P < 0.001), especially in the detection of superficial lesions (100% detected by autopsy, 10.5% by postmortem CT, P < 0.001) and solid organ injuries (100% by autopsy, 18.5% by postmortem CT, P < 0.001), and in the detection of musculoskeletal injuries (91.3% for autopsy, 90.3% for postmortem CT, P = not significant). Postmortem CT and autopsy have distinct performance profiles, and although the first cannot replace the latter it is a useful complementary examination.

March 2005
M. Ben-Haim, M. Carmiel, N. Lubezky, R. Keidar, P. Katz, A. Blachar, A. Nomrod, P. Sorkine, R. Oren, J.M. Klausner and R. Nakache
Background: Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation is becoming an alternative to cadaveric transplantation in urgent and elective settings. Donor selection crucially affects donor safety and recipient outcome.

Objective: To present our algorithm of urgent and elective donor selection.

Methods: Urgent selection is expeditious and protocol‑based. Elective selection permits a comprehensive process. Both include medical, psychosocial and surgical-anatomic evaluations. Liver volumes and vascular anatomy are evaluated with computerized tomographic angiography. Informed consent is obtained after painstaking explanations. Independent institutional committees review and approve all cases.

Results: Between July 2003 and June 2004 we evaluated 43 potential live donors for 12 potential recipients (fulminant hepatic failure, n=5; chronic end-stage liver disease, n=6); primary graft non-function, n=1). Thirty-three candidates (76%) were excluded due to blood type incompatibility (n=14, 42%), incompatible anatomy (n=8, 24%) – including problematic volume distribution (n=2) or vascular anatomy (n=6) – psychosocial issues (n=4, 12%), or medical co-morbidity (n=7, 22%). Five recipients (FHF[1], n=4; chronic ESLD[2], n=1) were successfully transplanted from living donors. In the acute setting, two patients (FHF, PGNF[3]) died in the absence of an appropriate donor (cadaveric or living donor). In the elective group, one patient died of unexpected variceal bleeding and one received a cadaveric graft just before the planned living donor transplantation was performed. One candidate was transplanted overseas and two cases are scheduled. The ratio of compatibility for donation was 34% (10/29) for blood type-compatible candidates.

Conclusions: Donor selection for living donor liver transplantation is a complex, labor-intensive multidisciplinary process. Most exclusions are due to blood type incompatibility or anatomic details. Psychosocial aspects of these donations warrant special attention.

___________

[1] FHF = fulminant hepatic failure

[2] ESLD = chronic end-stage liver disease

[3] PGNF = primary graft non-function

August 2003
Y. Waisman, N. Siegal, M. Chemo, G. Siegal, L. Amir, Y. Blachar and M. Mimouni

Background: Understanding discharge instructions is crucial to optimal healing but may be compromised in the hectic environment of the emergency department.

Objectives: To determine parents’ understanding of ED[1] discharge instructions and factors that may affect it.

Methods: A convenience sample of parents of children discharged home from the ED of an urban tertiary care pediatric facility (n=287) and a suburban level II general hospital (n=195) completed a 13-item questionnaire covering demographics, level of anxiety, and quality of physician’s explanation. Parents also described their child’s diagnosis and treatment instructions and indicated preferred auxiliary methods of delivery of information. Data were analyzed using the BMPD statistical package.

Results: Full understanding was found in 72% and 78% of the parents at the respective centers for the diagnosis, and in 82% and 87% for the treatment instructions (P  = NS between centers). There was no statistical correlation between level of understanding and parental age, gender, education, level of anxiety before or after the ED visit, or time of day. The most contributory factor to lack of understanding was staff use of medical terminology. Parents suggested further explanations by a special discharge nurse and written information as auxiliary methods.

Conclusions: Overall, parental understanding of ED discharge instructions is good. However, there remains a considerable number (about 20%) who fail to fully comprehend the diagnosis or treatment directives. This subset might benefit from the use of lay terminology by the staff, institution of a special discharge nurse, or use of diagnosis-specific information sheets.






[1] ED = emergency department


Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel