METHODS AND DESIGN: A randomised, single blind controlled trial will be conducted. Twenty-eight patients aged 18 years and above with a recent grade-2 hamstring injury will be invited to take part. Participants will be randomised to receive either autologous PRP injection with rehabilitation programme, or rehabilitation programme only. Participants will be followed up at day three of study and then weekly for 16 weeks. At each follow up visit, participants will be assessed on readiness to return-to-play using a set of criteria. The primary end-point is when participants have fulfilled the return-to-play criteria or end of 16 weeks.The main outcome measure of this study is the duration to return-to-play after injury.
CONCLUSION: This study protocol proposes a rigorous and potential significant evaluation of PRP use for grade-2 hamstring injury. If proven effective such findings could be of great benefit for patients with similar injuries.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISCRTN66528592.
AIMS: To investigate the effect of intraperitoneal administration of ondansetron for postoperative pain management as an adjuvant to intravenous acetaminophen in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy were randomized into two groups (n = 25 each) to receive either intraperitoneal ondansetron or saline injected in the gall bladder bed at the end of the procedure. The primary outcome was the difference in pain from baseline to 24-h post-operative assessed by comparing the area under the curve of visual analog score between the two groups.
RESULTS: The derived area under response curve of visual analog scores in the ondansetron group (735.8 ± 418.3) was 33.97% lower than (p = 0.005) that calculated for the control group (1114.4 ± 423.9). The need for rescue analgesia was significantly lower in the ondansetron (16%) versus in the control group (54.17%) (p = 0.005), indicating better pain control. The correlation between the time for unassisted mobilization and the area under response curve of visual analog scores signified the positive analgesic influence of ondansetron (rs =0.315, p = 0.028). The frequency of nausea and vomiting was significantly lower in patients who received ondansetron than that reported in the control group (p = 0.023 (8 h), and 0.016 (24 h) respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: The added positive impact of ondansetron on postoperative pain control alongside its anti-emetic effect made it a unique novel option for patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients.
SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), and trials registries (16 May 2018). Review authors searched PubMed until February 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 'no-option' CLI patients comparing a particular source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy against another source or regimen of autologous cell-based therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of the trials. We extracted outcome data from each trial and pooled them for meta-analysis. We calculated effect estimates using a risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), or a mean difference (MD) with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS: We included seven RCTs with a total of 359 participants. These studies compared bone marrow-mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) versus mobilised peripheral blood stem cells (mPBSCs), BM-MNCs versus bone marrow-mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs), high cell dose versus low cell dose, and intramuscular (IM) versus intra-arterial (IA) routes of cell implantation. We identified no other comparisons in these studies. We considered most studies to be at low risk of bias in random sequence generation, incomplete outcome data, and selective outcome reporting; at high risk of bias in blinding of patients and personnel; and at unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessors. The quality of evidence was most often low to very low, with risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness of outcomes the major downgrading factors.Three RCTs (100 participants) reported a total of nine deaths during the study follow-up period. These studies did not report deaths according to treatment group.Results show no clear difference in amputation rates between IM and IA routes (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.18; three RCTs, 95 participants; low-quality evidence). Single-study data show no clear difference in amputation rates between BM-MNC- and mPBSC-treated groups (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.45 to 5.24; 150 participants; low-quality evidence) and between high and low cell dose (RR 3.21, 95% CI 0.87 to 11.90; 16 participants; very low-quality evidence). The study comparing BM-MNCs versus BM-MSCs reported no amputations.Single-study data with low-quality evidence show similar numbers of participants with healing ulcers between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.83; 49 participants) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.76; 41 participants). In contrast, more participants appeared to have healing ulcers in the BM-MSC group than in the BM-MNC group (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.92; one RCT, 22 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Researchers comparing high versus low cell doses did not report ulcer healing.Single-study data show similar numbers of participants with reduction in rest pain between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.06; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and between IM and IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.64; 32 participants; low-quality evidence). One study reported no clear difference in rest pain scores between BM-MNC and BM-MSC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.61; 37 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Trials comparing high versus low cell doses did not report rest pain.Single-study data show no clear difference in the number of participants with increased ankle-brachial index (ABI; increase of > 0.1 from pretreatment), between BM-MNCs and mPBSCs (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.40; 104 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and between IM and IA routes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.00; 35 participants; very low-quality evidence). In contrast, ABI scores appeared higher in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.09; one RCT, 37 participants; low-quality evidence). ABI was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Similar numbers of participants had improved transcutaneous oxygen tension (TcO₂) with IM versus IA routes (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.72; two RCTs, 62 participants; very low-quality evidence). Single-study data with low-quality evidence show a higher TcO₂ reading in BM-MSC versus BM-MNC groups (MD 8.00, 95% CI 3.46 to 12.54; 37 participants) and in mPBSC- versus BM-MNC-treated groups (MD 1.70, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.99; 150 participants). TcO₂ was not reported in the high versus low cell dose comparison.Study authors reported no significant short-term adverse effects attributed to autologous cell implantation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Mostly low- and very low-quality evidence suggests no clear differences between different stem cell sources and different treatment regimens of autologous cell implantation for outcomes such as all-cause mortality, amputation rate, ulcer healing, and rest pain for 'no-option' CLI patients. Pooled analyses did not show a clear difference in clinical outcomes whether cells were administered via IM or IA routes. High-quality evidence is lacking; therefore the efficacy and long-term safety of autologous cells derived from different sources, prepared using different protocols, administered at different doses, and delivered via different routes for the treatment of 'no-option' CLI patients, remain to be confirmed.Future RCTs with larger numbers of participants are needed to determine the efficacy of cell-based therapy for CLI patients, along with the optimal cell source, phenotype, dose, and route of implantation. Longer follow-up is needed to confirm the durability of angiogenic potential and the long-term safety of cell-based therapy.
Objective: This study addressed the therapeutic effect of 3-(2,5-dimethoxyphenyl)-1-(5-methyl furan-2-yl) prop-2-en-1-one (DMPF-1); synthetic chalcone derivative, on antinociceptive activity in vivo.
Materials and Methods: The antinociceptive profile was evaluated using acetic-acid-induced abdominal writhing, hot plate, and formalin-induced paw licking test. Capsaicin, phorbol 12-myristate 12 acetate (PMA), and glutamate-induced paw licking test were carried out to evaluate their potential effects toward different targets.
Results: It was shown that the doses of 0.1, 0.5, 1, and 5 mg/kg of DMPF-1 given via intraperitoneal injection showed significant reduction in writhing responses and increased the latency time in hot-plate test where reduced time spent on licking the injected paw in formalin and dose contingency inhibition was observed. The similar results were observed in capsaicin, PMA, and glutamate-induced paw licking test. In addition, the challenge with nonselective opioid receptor antagonist (naloxone) aimed to evaluate the involvement of the opioidergic system, which showed no reversion in analgesic profile in formalin and hot-plate test.
Conclusion: Collectively, this study showed that DMPF-1 markedly inhibits both peripheral and central nociception through the mechanism involving an interaction with vanilloid and glutamatergic system regardless of the activation of the opioidergic system.
METHODS: We report a case series of 16 patients who successfully underwent fixation of the clavicle under the wide-awake technique. The clavicle fractures were grouped under the AO Fracture Classification. The WALANT solution comprised 1% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine, and 10:1 sodium bicarbonate. A total of 40 mL was injected in each patient with 10 mL subcutaneously along the clavicle followed by 30 mL subperiosteally at multiple intervals and directions.
RESULTS: The Numerical Pain Rating Score was 0 during WALANT injection and during surgery except for 2 patients with Numerical Pain Rating Scores of 1 and 2, respectively, during reduction.
CONCLUSION: We conclude that clavicle plating under WALANT is a good alternative option of anesthesia.
METHODS: A double-blind, multicenter randomized clinical trial was undertaken in four teaching hospitals in the North of Iraq and Al-Azhar University Hospital in Egypt, from March 2016 to May 2019. Group I (274 women) received 400 μg misoprostol and group II (249 women) received 800 μg misoprostol. Data regarding the time of placental separation and amount of vaginal blood loss were analyzed and proportions were compared between groups using Chi-squared test. Mean values were compared using the Student's t-test. The Mann-Whitney test was used to determine the median of vaginal blood loss.
RESULTS: The proportion of placental separation was 84.3% among women in group I and 86.7% of women in group II. The mean time of placental separation was 18.86 ± 234.2 and 17.86 ± 213.09 min in groups I and II, respectively (P