BACKGROUND Contemporary innovations in the area of local anesthesia have attempted to provide an absolutely pain free experience for patients.Since the introduction of Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Delivery Sys...BACKGROUND Contemporary innovations in the area of local anesthesia have attempted to provide an absolutely pain free experience for patients.Since the introduction of Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Delivery Systems to dentistry,many studies have compared its efficacy and safety to conventional anesthesia.However,very few studies have compared single tooth anesthesia(STA)and traditional local anesthesia.AIM To compare pain rating,changes in blood pressure,and heart rate during the local anesthetic injection.The secondary objectives were to measure the patients’level of satisfaction and the differences in anesthetic efficiency between the STA system and traditional local infiltration.METHODS A randomized controlled trial was conducted and a total of 80 patients with dental restorative needs were enrolled for the study.The patients were evaluated for their general physical status and oral clinical findings before enrollment.Information regarding perceived pain,changes in heart rate and blood pressure,and patients’satisfaction was collected using an electronic data form and was analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests.RESULTS No significant difference was noted in perceived pain(P=0.59)and systolic blood pressure(P=0.09)during anesthetic injection using both traditional and STA techniques.STA patients had a significantly higher heart rate during anesthesia,although a statistically significant difference was noted among the traditional anesthesia and the STA groups even before anesthesia.During the restorative procedure,less pain was perceived by STA patients on the Wong-Baker FACES pain scale,which was statistically significant(P<0.001).Analyses of post-procedure patient responses showed that STA patients had a significantly better treatment experience and preferred to have the same method of injection in the future(P=0.04).CONCLUSION STA system can provide less painful and more comfortable restorative treatment procedures in comparison to the traditional infiltration technique.展开更多
BACKGROUND Hip resurfacing arthroplasty(HRA)is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty(THA)that is typically reserved for young active patients because it preserves bone.However,the benefits of HRA only hold true if ...BACKGROUND Hip resurfacing arthroplasty(HRA)is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty(THA)that is typically reserved for young active patients because it preserves bone.However,the benefits of HRA only hold true if conversion THA after failed HRA provides acceptable outcomes.AIM To compare patient reported outcomes for conversion THA after HRA failure to primary THA.METHODS A retrospective review of 36 patients(37 hips)that underwent conversion THA for failed HRA between October 2006 and May 2019 by a single surgeon was performed.Patient reported outcomes[modified Harris Hip Score(mHHS),University of California Los Angeles(UCLA)activity score]were obtained via an email-based responder-anonymous survey.Outcomes were compared to normative data of a primary THA cohort with similar demographics.Subgroup analysis was performed comparing outcomes of conversion THA for adverse local tissue reaction(ALTR)vs all other causes for failure.RESULTS The study group had a lower mHHS than the control group(81.7±13.8 vs 90.2±11.6,P<0.01);however,both groups had similar UCLA activity levels(7.5±2.3 vs 7.2±1.6,P=0.51).Patients that underwent conversion for non-ATLR causes had similar mHHS(85.2±11.5 vs 90.2±11.6,P=0.11)and higher UCLA activity levels(8.5±1.8 vs 7.2±1.6,P<0.01)compared to the control group.Patients that underwent conversion for ATLR had worse mHHS(77.1±14.5 vs 90.2±11.6,P<0.01)and UCLA activity levels(6.1±2.3 vs 7.2±1.6,P=0.05)when compared to the control group.CONCLUSION Patient outcomes equivalent to primary THA can be achieved following HRA conversion to THA.However,inferior outcomes were demonstrated for ALTR-related HRA failure.Patient selection and perhaps further studies examining alternative HRA bearing surfaces should be considered.展开更多
To assess the merits of currently available treatment options in the management of patients with low rectal cancer, a review of the medical literature pertaining to the operative and non-operative management of low re...To assess the merits of currently available treatment options in the management of patients with low rectal cancer, a review of the medical literature pertaining to the operative and non-operative management of low rectal cancer was performed, with particular emphasis on sphincter preservation, oncological outcome, functional outcome, morbidity, quality of life, and patient preference. Low anterior resection (AR) is technically feasible in an increasing proportion of patients with low rectal cancer. The cost of sphincter preservation is the risk of morbidity and poor functional outcome in a significant proportion of patients. Transanal and endoscopic surgery are attractive options in selected patients that can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes while avoiding the morbidity and functional sequelae of open total mesorectal excision. In complete responders to neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a non-operative approach may prove to be an option. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) imposes a permanent stoma and is associated with significant incidence of perineal morbidity but avoids the risk of poor functional outcome following AR. Quality of life following AR and APE is comparable. Given the choice, most patients will choose AR over APE, however patients following APE positively appraise this option. In striving toward sphincter preservation the challenge is not only to achieve the best possible oncological outcome, but also to ensure that patients with low rectal cancer have realistic and accurate expectations of their treatment choice so that the best possible overall outcome can be obtained by each individual.展开更多
文摘BACKGROUND Contemporary innovations in the area of local anesthesia have attempted to provide an absolutely pain free experience for patients.Since the introduction of Computer-Controlled Local Anesthetic Delivery Systems to dentistry,many studies have compared its efficacy and safety to conventional anesthesia.However,very few studies have compared single tooth anesthesia(STA)and traditional local anesthesia.AIM To compare pain rating,changes in blood pressure,and heart rate during the local anesthetic injection.The secondary objectives were to measure the patients’level of satisfaction and the differences in anesthetic efficiency between the STA system and traditional local infiltration.METHODS A randomized controlled trial was conducted and a total of 80 patients with dental restorative needs were enrolled for the study.The patients were evaluated for their general physical status and oral clinical findings before enrollment.Information regarding perceived pain,changes in heart rate and blood pressure,and patients’satisfaction was collected using an electronic data form and was analyzed using paired and unpaired t-tests.RESULTS No significant difference was noted in perceived pain(P=0.59)and systolic blood pressure(P=0.09)during anesthetic injection using both traditional and STA techniques.STA patients had a significantly higher heart rate during anesthesia,although a statistically significant difference was noted among the traditional anesthesia and the STA groups even before anesthesia.During the restorative procedure,less pain was perceived by STA patients on the Wong-Baker FACES pain scale,which was statistically significant(P<0.001).Analyses of post-procedure patient responses showed that STA patients had a significantly better treatment experience and preferred to have the same method of injection in the future(P=0.04).CONCLUSION STA system can provide less painful and more comfortable restorative treatment procedures in comparison to the traditional infiltration technique.
文摘BACKGROUND Hip resurfacing arthroplasty(HRA)is an alternative to total hip arthroplasty(THA)that is typically reserved for young active patients because it preserves bone.However,the benefits of HRA only hold true if conversion THA after failed HRA provides acceptable outcomes.AIM To compare patient reported outcomes for conversion THA after HRA failure to primary THA.METHODS A retrospective review of 36 patients(37 hips)that underwent conversion THA for failed HRA between October 2006 and May 2019 by a single surgeon was performed.Patient reported outcomes[modified Harris Hip Score(mHHS),University of California Los Angeles(UCLA)activity score]were obtained via an email-based responder-anonymous survey.Outcomes were compared to normative data of a primary THA cohort with similar demographics.Subgroup analysis was performed comparing outcomes of conversion THA for adverse local tissue reaction(ALTR)vs all other causes for failure.RESULTS The study group had a lower mHHS than the control group(81.7±13.8 vs 90.2±11.6,P<0.01);however,both groups had similar UCLA activity levels(7.5±2.3 vs 7.2±1.6,P=0.51).Patients that underwent conversion for non-ATLR causes had similar mHHS(85.2±11.5 vs 90.2±11.6,P=0.11)and higher UCLA activity levels(8.5±1.8 vs 7.2±1.6,P<0.01)compared to the control group.Patients that underwent conversion for ATLR had worse mHHS(77.1±14.5 vs 90.2±11.6,P<0.01)and UCLA activity levels(6.1±2.3 vs 7.2±1.6,P=0.05)when compared to the control group.CONCLUSION Patient outcomes equivalent to primary THA can be achieved following HRA conversion to THA.However,inferior outcomes were demonstrated for ALTR-related HRA failure.Patient selection and perhaps further studies examining alternative HRA bearing surfaces should be considered.
文摘To assess the merits of currently available treatment options in the management of patients with low rectal cancer, a review of the medical literature pertaining to the operative and non-operative management of low rectal cancer was performed, with particular emphasis on sphincter preservation, oncological outcome, functional outcome, morbidity, quality of life, and patient preference. Low anterior resection (AR) is technically feasible in an increasing proportion of patients with low rectal cancer. The cost of sphincter preservation is the risk of morbidity and poor functional outcome in a significant proportion of patients. Transanal and endoscopic surgery are attractive options in selected patients that can provide satisfactory oncological outcomes while avoiding the morbidity and functional sequelae of open total mesorectal excision. In complete responders to neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, a non-operative approach may prove to be an option. Abdominoperineal excision (APE) imposes a permanent stoma and is associated with significant incidence of perineal morbidity but avoids the risk of poor functional outcome following AR. Quality of life following AR and APE is comparable. Given the choice, most patients will choose AR over APE, however patients following APE positively appraise this option. In striving toward sphincter preservation the challenge is not only to achieve the best possible oncological outcome, but also to ensure that patients with low rectal cancer have realistic and accurate expectations of their treatment choice so that the best possible overall outcome can be obtained by each individual.
