OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine the efficacy of PR in reducing radicular pain among lumbar disc herniation patients compared with conservative treatment.
METHODS: This study was conducted using the before-andafter quasi experimental design. There were 50 subjects that fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria and they were divided into an intervention group (n=25) and control group (n=25). The intervention group was given once PR in the dorsal root ganglion. All subjects were assessed for Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) before treatment, at 1- , 2- and 4-week after treatment.
RESULTS: At1-, 2- and 4-week, the VAS reduction in the intervention group was statistically significant compared to the control group. Four weeks after the intervention, the VAS score decreased in the intervention group (mean VAS -78.5, SD 16.8) more significantly compared to the control group (p<0.001). The ODI score decreased in the intervention group (mean ODI -61.8, SD 20.1) more significantly than in the control group (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: Finding showed that at1- , 2- and 4-weekPR was more efficacious in reducing radicular pain among lumbar disc herniation patients compared to the conservative therapy.
METHODOLOGY: This is a cross-sectional study to assess the knowledge and attitude on pain assessment and management among medical officers at QEH. A universal sampling technique was used, to represent medical officers from major clinical departments. The Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Pain (KASRP) questionnaire was used for this study.
RESULTS: A total of 278 questionnaires were distributed to medical officers. The study sample consisted of 125 females (44.9%), and 153 males (55.1%). The age group of the participants ranged from 25 to 41 years old. A 116 respondents scored less than 60% on the knowledge of pain (41.7%). These findings show there was a deficit in their knowledge and attitude about pain. There was also a difference of scores between genders, where the male doctors performed better than the female doctors. There was a difference between scores among doctors from different departments. The highest mean score was from the department of Anaesthesia (80.2%). There was also a difference regarding pain knowledge based on the years of working as a doctor, where the highest passing rate was from doctors working for more than five years.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that there is a lack of knowledge and attitude on pain assessment and management among QEH medical officers who responded to this study. This will support the plan on a more aggressive and continuous education programme to improve pain assessment and management among doctors in QEH.
Methodology: A total of 123 patients were recruited into this study, comprising 82 patients who underwent a pterional approach and 41 patients who underwent a supraorbital approach. Computed tomography angiograms, the modified Rankin Scale, and the visual analogue scale were administered at 6 months to look for residual aneurysm, functional outcomes, scar tenderness, and cosmetic satisfaction. Complication data were collected from patients' case notes.
Results: The mean operating time for the pterional group was 226 min, compared to supraorbital group, which was 192 min (P = 0.07). Cosmetic satisfaction was significantly higher (P = 0.001) in the supraorbital group. There was no significant difference between the supraorbital and pterional groups' scar tenderness (P = 0.719), residual aneurysm (P = 0.719), or functional outcomes (P = 0.137), and there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of intra-operative and post-operative complications.
Conclusions: The supraorbital group had better cosmetic outcomes and shorter operating times compared to the pterional group.
Objective: To investigate the outcome of second courses of TMS.
Method: A naturalistic investigation-we prospectively studied 30 MDE in-patients and routinely collected information, including pre- and post-treatment with Six-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD6), a six-item Visual Analogue Scale (VAS6) and the Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S). Two categories of patients were considered: i) those who had remitted with a first course, but relapsed, and ii) those who had not remitted with the first course.
Results: Thirty individuals received a second TMS course. The mean time to the second course was 27.5 weeks. Based on the HAMD6, 26 (87%) achieved remission after the first course, and 22 (73%) achieved remission after the second course. Furthermore, based on the HAMD6 results, of the four patients who did not achieve remission with a first course, three (75%) did so with a second course.
Conclusion: In MDE, a second course of TMS is likely to help those who remitted to a first course and then relapsed, as well as those who did not achieve remission with a first course.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of short-term intravenous magnesium on the length of hospital stay and quality of life in children and adults with sickle cell disease. To determine the effects of long-term oral magnesium therapy on the frequency of painful crises and the quality of life in children and adults with sickle cell disease.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and handsearching of journals and conference abstract books.Date of last search of the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Haemoglobinopathies Trials Register: 01 December 2016.Date of last search of other resources (clinical trials registries): 29 March 2017.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled studies of oral or intravenous magnesium compared to placebo or no magnesium.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Authors independently assessed the study quality and extracted the data using standard Cochrane methodologies.
MAIN RESULTS: We included five randomized placebo-controlled studies with a total of 386 participants (aged three to 53 years). Two shorter parallel studies (n = 306) compared intravenous magnesium sulphate to placebo (normal saline) for admission to hospital due to a vaso-occlusive crisis, for which we were able to analyse data. The quality of evidence was moderate for studies presenting this comparison mainly due to limitations due to risk of bias and imprecision. Two of the three longer-term studies comparing oral magnesium pidolate to placebo had a cross-over design. The third was a parallel factorial study which compared hydroxyurea and oral magnesium to each other and to placebo over a longer period of time; we only present the comparison of oral magnesium to placebo from this study. The quality of evidence was very low with uncertainty of the estimation.The eight-hourly dose levels in the two studies of intravenous magnesium were different; one used 100 mg/kg while the second used 40 mg/kg. Only one of these studies (n = 104) reported the mean daily pain score while hospitalised (a non-significant difference between groups, moderate quality evidence). The second study (n = 202) reported a number of child- and parent-reported quality of life scores. None of the scores showed any difference between treatment groups (low quality evidence). Data from one study (n = 106) showed no difference in length of stay in hospital between groups (low quality evidence). Both studies reported on adverse events, but not defined by severity as we had planned. One study showed significantly more participants receiving intravenous magnesium experienced warmth at infusion site compared to placebo; there were no differences between groups for other adverse events (low quality evidence).Three studies (n = 80) compared oral magnesium pidolate to placebo. None of them reported data which we were able to analyse. One study (n = 24) reported on the number of painful days and stated there was no difference between two groups (low quality evidence). None of the studies reported on quality of life or length of hospital stay. Two studies (n = 68) reported there were no differences in levels of magnesium in either plasma or red blood cells (moderate quality evidence). Two studies (n = 56) reported adverse events. One reported episodes of mild diarrhoea and headache, all of which resolved without stopping treatment. The second study reported adverse events as gastrointestinal disorders, headache or migraine, upper respiratory infections and rash; which were all evenly distributed across treatment groups (moderate quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate to low quality evidence showed neither intravenous magnesium and oral magnesium therapy has an effect on reducing painful crisis, length of hospital stay and changing quality of life in treating sickle cell disease. Therefore, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding its clinical benefit. Further randomized controlled studies, perhaps multicentre, are necessary to establish whether intravenous and oral magnesium therapies have any effect on improving the health of people with sickle cell disease.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on mother and baby of a policy of selective episiotomy ('only if needed') compared with a policy of routine episiotomy ('part of routine management') for vaginal births.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (14 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing selective versus routine use of episiotomy, irrespective of parity, setting or surgical type of episiotomy. We included trials where either unassisted or assisted vaginal births were intended. Quasi-RCTs, trials using a cross-over design or those published in abstract form only were not eligible for inclusion in this review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third author mediated where there was no clear consensus. We observed good practice for data analysis and interpretation where trialists were review authors. We used fixed-effect models unless heterogeneity precluded this, expressed results as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 12 studies (6177 women), 11 in women in labour for whom a vaginal birth was intended, and one in women where an assisted birth was anticipated. Two were trials each with more than 1000 women (Argentina and the UK), and the rest were smaller (from Canada, Germany, Spain, Ireland, Malaysia, Pakistan, Columbia and Saudi Arabia). Eight trials included primiparous women only, and four trials were in both primiparous and multiparous women. For risk of bias, allocation was adequately concealed and reported in nine trials; sequence generation random and adequately reported in three trials; blinding of outcomes adequate and reported in one trial, blinding of participants and personnel reported in one trial.For women where an unassisted vaginal birth was anticipated, a policy of selective episiotomy may result in 30% fewer women experiencing severe perineal/vaginal trauma (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; 5375 women; eight RCTs; low-certainty evidence). We do not know if there is a difference for blood loss at delivery (an average of 27 mL less with selective episiotomy, 95% CI from 75 mL less to 20 mL more; two trials, 336 women, very low-certainty evidence). Both selective and routine episiotomy have little or no effect on infants with Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (four trials, no events; 3908 women, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference in perineal infection (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.82, three trials, 1467 participants, low-certainty evidence).For pain, we do not know if selective episiotomy compared with routine results in fewer women with moderate or severe perineal pain (measured on a visual analogue scale) at three days postpartum (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.05, one trial, 165 participants, very low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) dyspareunia (RR1.14, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.53, three trials, 1107 participants, moderate-certainty evidence); and there may be little or no difference for long-term (six months or more) urinary incontinence (average RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.44, three trials, 1107 participants, low-certainty evidence). One trial reported genital prolapse at three years postpartum. There was no clear difference between the two groups (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.41; 365 women; one trial, low certainty evidence). Other outcomes relating to long-term effects were not reported (urinary fistula, rectal fistula, and faecal incontinence). Subgroup analyses by parity (primiparae versus multiparae) and by surgical method (midline versus mediolateral episiotomy) did not identify any modifying effects. Pain was not well assessed, and women's preferences were not reported.One trial examined selective episiotomy compared with routine episiotomy in women where an operative vaginal delivery was intended in 175 women, and did not show clear difference on severe perineal trauma between the restrictive and routine use of episiotomy, but the analysis was underpowered.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In women where no instrumental delivery is intended, selective episiotomy policies result in fewer women with severe perineal/vaginal trauma. Other findings, both in the short or long term, provide no clear evidence that selective episiotomy policies results in harm to mother or baby.The review thus demonstrates that believing that routine episiotomy reduces perineal/vaginal trauma is not justified by current evidence. Further research in women where instrumental delivery is intended may help clarify if routine episiotomy is useful in this particular group. These trials should use better, standardised outcome assessment methods.
AIMS: This study was done to find out the most suitable anaesthesia for patients with fewer complications and also to look at the trend of anaesthesia being used.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was done of patients who underwent cataract surgery from 2007 to 2014 in Hospital Melaka. Data were obtained from the National Eye Database and analysed using SPSS. Trend of types of anaesthesia used and the associated complications with each were studied.
RESULTS: The most frequently used anaesthesia was topical anaesthesia, which showed an upward trend followed by subtenon in turn showing a downward trend. Subtenon anaesthesia was associated with more intraoperative and postoperative complications while topical anaesthesia was associated with fewer complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Topical anaesthesia has shown a steady increase in usage and is the ideal anaesthesia, which has been associated with fewer complications.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcomes of minimal invasive surgery (MIS) and conventional open surgery for spinal metastasis patients.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There is lack of knowledge on whether MIS is comparable to conventional open surgery in treating spinal metastasis.
METHODS: Patients with spinal metastasis requiring surgery from January 2008 to December 2010 in two spine centers were recruited. The demographic, preoperative, operative, perioperative and postoperative data were collected and analyzed. Thirty MIS patients were matched with 30 open surgery patients using propensity score matching technique with a match tolerance of 0.02 based on the covariate age, tumor type, Tokuhashi score, and Tomita score.
RESULTS: Both groups had significant improvements in Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Karnofsky scores, visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain and neurological status postoperatively. However, the difference comparing the MIS and open surgery group was not statistically significant. MIS group had significantly longer instrumented segments (5.5 ± 3.1) compared with open group (3.8 ± 1.7). Open group had significantly longer decompressed segment (1.8 ± 0.8) than MIS group (1.0 ± 1.0). Open group had significantly more blood loss (2062.1 ± 1148.0 mL) compared with MIS group (1156.0 ± 572.3 mL). More patients in the open group (76.7%) needed blood transfusions (with higher average units of blood transfused) compared with MIS group (40.0%). Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in MIS group (116.1 ± 63.3 s) compared with open group (69.9 ± 42.6 s). Open group required longer hospitalization (21.1 ± 10.8 days) compared with MIS group (11.0 ± 5.0 days).
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that MIS resulted in comparable outcome to open surgery for patients with spinal metastasis but has the advantage of less blood loss, blood transfusions, and shorter hospital stay.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.