• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 14.04.24

Search results


May 2018
Arie Markel MD, Nayef Habashe MD, Ariel Aviv MD, Olga Monich MD, Irit Elmalah MD, Nadeem Marei MD and David Tovbin MD
April 2018
Raja Hakim MD, Nimrod Rozen MD PhD, Andrea Zatkova PhD, Judit Krausz MD, Irit Elmalah MD and Ronen Spiegel MD
March 2013
S. Eilat-Tsanani, H. Tabenkin, J. Shental, I. Elmaleh and D. Steinmtz
 Background: Radical prostatectomy is one option for treating localized prostate cancer, but it can cause functional impairment of the urogenital system.

Objectives: To describe the outcomes of radical prostatectomy as perceived by the patients, and their ways of coping with them.

Methods: We conducted a qualitative study of 22 men with localized prostatic cancer 1 year after surgery. The key questions related to the effect of the disease and the surgery on their lives and their view on the value of the surgery.

Results: The surgery was perceived as a necessary solution for the diagnosed cancer. All the participants suffered from varying degrees of urinary incontinence and erectile dysfunction. Urinary incontinence caused severe suffering. The impaired sexual ability affected relations with partners and led to feelings of shame and guilt and a decreased sense of self-esteem. In retrospect, the participants still viewed the surgery as a life-saving procedure. Faith in the surgeon contributed to their affirmation of the decision to undergo surgery despite the difficulties.

Conclusions: Patients were prepared to suffer the inevitable physical and psychological sequelae of radical prostatectomy because they believed the surgery to be a definitive solution for cancer. Surgeons advising patients with localized prostatic cancer on treatment options should address these difficult issues and provide psychological support, either themselves or in collaboration with professionals.

 

February 2011
G. Rubin, S. Krasnyansky, I. Gavish, I. Elmalah, O. Ben-Lulu and N. Rozen

Background: Routine histopathological analysis of bone extracted during total joint replacement is controversial.

Objectives: To evaluate the utility of routine histopathological analysis in total joint replacement.

Methods: We calculated the risk for discrepant diagnosis between the pre- and postoperative histopathological results by performing a meta-analysis of 11 studies (including our data). We also calculated the risk for significant discrepancies.

Results: The discrepant diagnoses analysis showed a random effect of 3% discrepancies (95% confidence interval 1.2–3.7%). Funnel plot indicates a publication bias; consequently, the conclusions from this analysis should be interpreted with caution. Regarding the significant discrepancy in diagnosis, we performed a meta-analysis of nine studies. Fixed-effects analysis of all the studies resulted in 0.16% significant discrepancies (95% CI[1] 0.02–0.30%) with no heterogeneity (Q = 3.93, degrees of freedom = 9, P = 0.14, I2 = 49.2%), and appropriate fixed-effects models.

Conclusions: We recommend no further routine histological examination, reserving this tool for cases with a controversial primary diagnosis and unexpected findings during the operation.






[1] CI = confidence interval


April 2008
February 2008
L. Shlizeman, S. Mazzawai and I. Elmalah
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