METHODS: A pragmatic, multi-centre, open-labelled, randomised trial. Eligible patients with MPE and an IPC will be randomised 1:1 to either regular topical mupirocin prophylaxis or no mupirocin (standard care). For the interventional arm, topical mupirocin will be applied around the IPC exit-site after each drainage, at least twice weekly. Weekly follow-up via phone calls or in person will be conducted for up to 6 months. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients who develop an IPC-related (pleural, skin, or tract) infection between the time of catheter insertion and end of follow-up period. Secondary outcomes include analyses of infection (types and episodes), hospitalisation days, health economics, adverse events, and survival. Subject to interim analyses, the trial will recruit up to 418 participants.
DISCUSSION: Results from this trial will determine the efficacy of mupirocin prophylaxis in patients who require IPC for MPE. It will provide data on infection rates, microbiology, and potentially infection pathways associated with IPC-related infections.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group Human Research Ethics Committee has approved the study (RGS0000005920). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12623000253606. Registered on 9 March 2023.
METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched MEDLINE (PubMed) and Embase electronic databases from inception until March 1, 2022, for original articles and conference abstracts of observational cross-sectional, case-controlled, or cohort design studies that reported the prevalence of DGBI overlap in adult participants (aged ≥18 years). We included only those studies where the diagnosis of DGBI was based on clinical assessment, questionnaire data, or specific symptom-based criteria. Studies were excluded if reporting on mixed populations of DGBI and organic diseases. Aggregate patient data were extracted from eligible published studies. The prevalence of DGBI overlap in all studies was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model, and further analysis stratified by subgroups (care setting, diagnostic criteria, geographic region, and gross domestic product per capita). We also assessed the relationship between DGBI overlap with anxiety, depression, and quality of life symptom scores. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022311101).
FINDINGS: 46 of 1268 screened studies, reporting on 75 682 adult DGBI participants, were eligible for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Overall, 24 424 (pooled prevalence 36·5% [95% CI 30·7 to 42·6]) participants had a DGBI overlap, with considerable between-study heterogeneity (I2=99·51, p=0·0001). In the tertiary health-care setting, overlap among participants with DGBI was more prevalent (8373 of 22 617, pooled prevalence 47·3% [95% CI 33·2 to 61·7]) compared with population-based cohorts (11 332 of 39 749, pooled prevalence 26·5% [95% CI 20·5 to 33·4]; odds ratio 2·50 [95% CI 1·28 to 4·87]; p=0·0084). Quality of life physical component scores were significantly lower in participants with DGBI overlap compared with participants without overlap (standardised mean difference -0·47 [95% CI -0·80 to -0·14]; p=0·025). Participants with DGBI overlap had both increased symptom scores for anxiety (0·39 [95% CI 0·24 to 0·54]; p=0·0001) and depression (0·41 [0·30 to 0·51]; p=0·0001).
INTERPRETATION: Overlap of DGBI subtypes is frequent, and is more prevalent in tertiary care settings and associated with more severe symptom manifestations or psychological comorbidities. Despite the large sample size, the comparative analyses revealed substantial heterogeneity, and the results should be interpreted with caution.
FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council and Centre for Research Excellence.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross sectional study with 64 arms from 32 patients (34 neuropathic, 30 nonneuropathic). Diagnosis was confirmed by nerve conduction study and electromyography. The ulnar nerves were evaluated with 15MHz small footprint linear array transducer. The ulnar nerve CSA was measured at three levels with arm extended: at medial epicondyle (ME), 5cm proximal and 5cm distal to ME. Results from the neuropathic and nonneuropathic arms were compared. Independent T-tests and Pearson correlation tests were used. P value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
RESULTS: Mean CSA values for the UN at levels 5cm proximal to ME, ME and 5cm distal to ME were 0.055, 0.109, 0.045 cm(2) respectively in the neuropathic group and 0.049, 0.075, 0.042 cm2 respectively in the non-neuropathic group. The CSA of the UN at the ME level was significantly larger in the neuropathic group, with p value of 0.005. However, there was no statistical difference between the groups at 5cm proximal and distal to the ME, with p values of 0.10 and 0.35 respectively.
CONCLUSION: There is significant difference in CSA values of the UN at ME between the neuropathic and non-neuropathic groups with mean CSA value above the predetermined 0.10cm(2) cut-off point. High-resolution ultrasonography is therefore useful to diagnose and follow up cases of elbow UNN.