Abstract Introduction Foreign body ingestion is not uncommon in patients with mental disorders, alcohol intoxication and for purposes of drug trafficking. Small objects pass spontaneously; however, larger ones may get stuck in the oesophagus, stomach or at narrow areas of the bowel. "Body packers" is a term used to describe persons who swallow or insert drug-filled packets into a body cavity. They are also called “swallowers”, “internal carriers” “couriers” or “mules”. Case report We report a 37 year old previous drug abuser who presented with dysphagia. Upper GI endoscopy showed an oblong foreign body covered in plastic in the lower oesophagus. This could not be extracted and hence was pushed into the stomach. Three weeks later, he presented with bowel obstruction that was shown on abdominal radiograph and confirmed by CT indicating multiple dilated small bowel loops with a transition point in the terminal ileum where the ingested package was identified. The package was then removed through a longitudinal enterotomy. Conclusion Ingested foreign bodies causing dysphagia should ideally be extracted endoscopically. If not possible, then a watch and wait policy may be justified. While most ingested objects pass spontaneously, unusual and larger ones may require surgical extraction. The contents, nature and reason for ingesting this strange object remain a mystery. With history of drug abuse and the consistent denial of knowingly swallowing that object, we can only conclude that the patient was trying to transport an illicit drug in the packet. Keywords Foreign body ingestion, bowel obstruction, body packers.

Foreign body ingestion is not uncommon in patients with mental disorders, alcohol intoxication and for purposes of drug trafficking. Small objects pass spontaneously; however, larger ones may get stuck in the oesophagus, stomach or at narrow areas of the bowel. 'Body packers' is a term used to describe persons who swallow or insert drug-filled packets into a body cavity. They are also called 'swallowers', 'internal carriers', 'couriers' or 'mules'. We report a 37-year-old previous drug abuser who presented with dysphagia. Upper GI endoscopy showed an oblong foreign body covered in plastic in the lower oesophagus. This could not be extracted and hence was pushed into the stomach. Three weeks later, he presented with bowel obstruction that was shown on abdominal radiograph and confirmed by CT indicating multiple dilated small bowel loops with a transition point in the terminal ileum where the ingested package was identified. The package was then removed through a longitudinal enterotomy. Ingested foreign bodies causing dysphagia should ideally be extracted endoscopically. If not possible, then a watch-and-wait policy may be justified. While most ingested objects pass spontaneously, unusual and larger ones may require surgical extraction. The contents, nature and reason for ingesting this strange object remain a mystery. With history of drug abuse and the consistent denial of knowingly swallowing that object, we can only conclude that the patient was trying to transport an illicit drug in the packet.

Introduction: The PROCESS Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case series in order to increase reporting robustness and transparency, and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers alike. In order to drive forwards reporting quality, they must be kept up to date. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Methods: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members from the previous DELPHI group were again invited, alongside editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery and the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. An online survey was completed by this expert group to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. Results: A total of 53 surgical experts agreed to participate and 49 (92%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the previous 2018 guidelines. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the PROCESS Group, with all but one of the PROCESS items receiving over 70% of scores ranging 7-9. Conclusion: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved PROCESS Checklist is now presented.

Introduction: The SCARE Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers, in order to increase robustness and transparency in reporting surgical cases. They must be kept up to date in order to drive forwards reporting quality. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Methods: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members were invited from the previous DELPHI group, as well as editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group completed an online survey to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. Results: A total of 54 surgical experts agreed to participate and 53 (98%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the new 2020 guideline. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the SCARE Group, with all modified SCARE items receiving over 70% scores 7-9. Conclusion: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved SCARE Checklist is now presented.

The urachus is an extra-peritoneal structure joining the bladder and the umbilicus; it lies between the transverse fascia and parietal peritoneum. Originating from the allantois and cloaca, the urachus provides a channel to allow drainage of the developing bladder in-utero. The lumen functionally closes before birth and the urachus atrophies in the post-natal period, leaving a persistent fi brous cord, known as the median umbilical ligament. If the lumen fails to fully close and atrophy in the early postnatal period, then it is known as a urachal remnant. Case report A 20-year-old male presented with an umbilical abscess and, under general anaesthesia, had an incision and drainage. He re-presented two months later with umbilical discharge and weight loss. Following re-admission, enteric contents was observed discharging from the umbilicus. Imaging identifi ed an ileal perforation tracking extra-peritoneally and draining into the umbilicus via a fi stula into a urachal sinus (Figure 1).

CONTEXT: The incidence of colorectal cancers (CRCs) in young Indian patients is higher than the international average. CRCs in young patients are commonly of mucinous type and show microsatellite instability (MSI). AIMS: To ascertain the MSI status of mucinous CRCs in patients <= 40 years of age by molecular testing and to correlate this with immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis and tumor histology. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue blocks of 30 young mucinous CRC patients were retrieved. MSI testing was done using two mononucleotide markers - BAT26 and NR24. IHC analysis was done using MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6. Histological features of all cases were studied. Data were analyzed using the SPSS software and the Pearson's chi-square test and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Eight out of 30 cases (26.7%) showed MSI by molecular testing. IHC identified seven of these cases. Histological features showing a statistically significant association with MSI were the presence of a well-differentiated adenocarcinoma component (P = 0.003), peritumoral lymphocytes (P = 0.002) and tumor budding (P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: The detection of defective mismatch repair (MMR) proteins using IHC for MLH1, MSH2, and MSH6 and molecular testing using BAT26 and NR24 appears to be a good protocol to detect CRCs with MSI. Histology could be useful in identifying cases that require screening for presence of MMR protein defects.

Introduction: Case reports have been a long held tradition within the surgical literature. Reporting guidelines can improve transparency and reporting quality. However, recent consensus-based guidelines for case reports (CARE) are not surgically focused. Our objective was to develop surgical case report guidelines.Methods: The CARE statement was used as the basis for a Delphi consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was administered via Google Forms and conducted using standard Delphi methodology. A multidisciplinary group of surgeons and others with expertise in the reporting of case reports were invited to participate. In round one, participants stated how each item of the CARE statement should be changed and what additional items were needed. Revised and additional items from round one were put forward into a further round, where participants voted on the extent of their agreement with each item, using a nine-point Likert scale, as proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) working group.Results: In round one, there was a 64% (38/59) response rate. Following adjustment of the guideline with the incorporation of recommended changes, round two commenced and there was an 83% (49/59) response rate. All but one of the items were approved by the participants, with Likert scores 7-9 awarded by >70% of respondents. The final guideline consists of a 14-item checklist.Conclusion: We present the SCARE Guideline, consisting of a 14-item checklist that will improve the reporting quality of surgical case reports. (C) 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Background:There is sparse Indian data on right colon cancer. Available literature suggests that it affects the young and survival is poor.Aim:This article reviews demographics and outcomes of surgically treated right sided colon cancer over a nine year period in a single colorectal unit in a tertiary care teaching hospital.Methods:A retrospective review of all patients undergoing right hemicolectomy for adenocarcinoma of the colon between January 2004 and December 2012 was undertaken. Data was collected from hospital records and telephonic interview when possible.Results:Two hundred and thirteen patients were studied. Mean age was 49 years with 57.1% being 50 years or younger. Stage 1 disease was seen in 9.9%, stage 2 in 35.2%, stage 3 in 42.3%, and stage 4 in 12.7%. Follow up was available for 81.6% with a mean follow up of 35.6 months. Five year disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was 81% and 74%. Presence of lymphovascular invasion and age >50 years were predictors of poor survival. Poor prognostic features on histopathology were not different between the young and the old. The 5 year DFS was similar in both, but the 5 year OS was better for the young (90% vs. 73%, p=0.029).Conclusion:Patients with right colon cancer are younger in India. They have similar histopathology when compared to the older population. Operable right colon cancer has an excellent prognosis. Five year DFS is similar in the young and the old, but OS is lower in the older population.

De Cruz P, Kamm MA, Hamilton AL, Ritchie KJ, Krejany EO, Gorelik A, Liew D, Prideaux L, Lawrance IC, Andrews JM, Bampton PA, Gibson PR, Sparrow M, Leong RW, Florin TH, Gearry RB, Radford-Smith G, Macrae FA, Debinski H, Selby W, Kronborg I, Johnston MJ, Woods R, Elliott PR, Bell SJ, Brown SJ, Connell WR, Desmond PV. (Department of Gastroenterology, St Vincent’s Hospital and Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Austin Health, University of Melbourne, Austin Academic Centre, Heidelberg, Australia; Department of Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK; Melbourne EpiCentre, University of Melbourne and Melbourne Health, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Fremantle Hospital and The University of Western Australia, Fremantle, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Royal Adelaide Hospital and University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Australia; Gastroenterology and Liver Services, Concord and Bankstown Hospitals and The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology, Mater Health Services, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia; Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand; QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, University of Queensland School of Medicine, Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Unit, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital, Brisbane, Australia; Department of Colorectal Medicine and Genetics, and Department of Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital and University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Melbourne Gastrointestinal Investigation Unit, Cabrini Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; AW Morrow Gastroenterology and Liver Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia; Department of Gastroenterology, Western Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Colorectal Surgery, St Vincent’s Hospital and Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.) Crohn’s disease management after intestinal resection: A randomised trial. Lancet 2015;385: 1406–17.

In 2012, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology's Task Force on Inflammatory Bowel Diseases undertook an exercise to produce consensus statements on Crohn's disease (CD). This consensus, produced through a modified Delphi process, reflects our current recommendations for the diagnosis and management of CD in India. The consensus statements are intended to serve as a reference point for teaching, clinical practice, and research in India.

Background: The design of good virtual simulators for laparoscopic training requires realistic visual and tactile perception. This is a study to characterize the factors that contribute to forces during laparoscopic pinching.Methods: Surgeons were divided into four groups according to years of experience in laparoscopic surgery. They were asked to grasp six different types of porcine abdominal tissue in a randomly sequenced manner, using two different types of sensorized graspers, under two regimes of perceptual feedback (with and without visual feedback). The forces (grasper handle force and grasper tip force) and grasper handle angle were recorded and analyzed.Results: The factors that determine forces during laparoscopic pinching can be ranked as follows: surgical experience (p < .001), tissue type (p = .007) and visual feedback (p = .033), but not grasper type (p = .071). Handle force depends significantly on surgical experience (p < .001), tissue type (p = .001) and visual feedback (p = .019), but not on grasper type (p = .203). Tip force depends significantly on surgical experience (p < .001) and marginally on tissue type (p = .082) and visual feedback (p = .053) but not on the grasper type (p = .180).Conclusion: Forces during laparoscopic pinching depend on surgical experience, tissue type and presence of visual feedback but not on grasper type. Our data can be an input in the design of virtual simulators with force feedback, for training laparoscopic pinching. (C) 2015 IJS Publishing Group Limited. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.