Materials and Methods: The research question was developed by using Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study design framework. Literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. Two reviewers were independently involved in the selection of the articles and data extraction process. Risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) based on 5 domains.
Results: Thirteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. QMix was found to have better smear layer removal ability than mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and phytic acid. The efficacy was less effective than 7% maleic acid and 10% citric acid. No conclusive results could be drawn between QMix and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid due to conflicting results. QMix was more effective when used for 3 minutes than 1 minute.
Conclusions: QMix has better smear layer removal ability compared to MTAD, NaOCl, Tubulicid Plus, and Phytic acid. In order to remove the smear layer more effectively with QMix, it is recommended to use it for a longer duration.
METHODS: Fifty-two internationally recognized bariatric experts from 28 countries convened for voting on 90 consensus statements over two rounds to identify those on which consensus could be reached. Inter-voter agreement of ≥ 70% was considered consensus, with voting participation ≥ 80% considered a robust vote.
RESULTS: At least 70% consensus was achieved for 65 of the 90 questions (72.2% of the items), 61 during the first round of voting and an additional four in the second round. Where consensus was reached on a binary agree/disagree or yes/no item, there was agreement with the statement presented in 53 of 56 instances (94.6%). Where consensus was reached on a statement where options favorable versus unfavorable to OAGB-MGB were provided, including statements in which OAGB-MGB was compared to another procedure, the response option favorable to OAGB-MGB was selected in 13 of 23 instances (56.5%).
CONCLUSION: Although there is general agreement that the OAGB-MGB is an effective and usually safe option for the management of patients with obesity or severe obesity, numerous areas of non-consensus remain in its use. Further empirical data are needed.
METHODS: Patients aged 75 years and older who underwent bariatric procedures in two academic centers between 2006 and 2015 were studied.
RESULTS: A total of 19 patients aged 75 years and above were identified. Eleven (58%) were male, the median age was 76 years old (range 75-81), and the median preoperative body mass index (BMI) was 41.4 kg/m2 (range 35.8-57.5). All of the bariatric procedures were primary procedures and performed laparoscopically: sleeve gastrectomy (SG) (n = 11, 58%), adjustable gastric band (AGB) (n = 4, 21%), Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) (n = 2, 11%), banded gastric plication (n = 1, 5%), and gastric plication (n = 1, 5%). The median operative time was 120 min (range 75-240), and the median length of stay was 2 days (range 1-7). Three patients (16%) developed postoperative atrial fibrillation which completely resolved at discharge. At 1 year, the median percentage of total weight loss (%TWL) was 18.4% (range 7.4-22.0). The 1-year %TWL varied among the bariatric procedures performed: SG (21%), RYGB (22%), AGB (7%), and gastric plication (8%). There were no 30-day readmissions, reoperations, or mortalities.
CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that bariatric surgery in selected patients aged 75 years and older would be safe and effective despite being higher risk. Age alone should not be the limiting factor for selecting patients for bariatric surgery.
Method: The study was performed as a cross sectional study conducted at two different centres in Malaysia. Ninety-eight patients who were diagnosed with rhinosinusitis and fulfilled the selection criteria were assessed as for the symptom score and VAS and the measurement of angulation of nasal septum was performed through a coronal view of CT paranasal sinuses in bone window setting at osteomeatal complex level.
Results: The result obtained from one-way ANOVA test revealed a significant association between category of severity of septal angulation and the symptom score of rhinosinusitis (p=0.025). In addition, the result obtained from one-way ANOVA test also revealed a significant association between category of severity of septal angulation and the VAS of rhinosinusitis (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Severity of nasal septum angulation may be significantly associated with severity of rhinosinusitis based on symptom score and VAS. These findings could be used in tailored management of patient with rhinosinusitis especially during functional endoscopic sinus surgery.
Materials and Methods: From 2012 to 2014, we consecutively recruited patients with diabetic foot referred to Orthopaedic surgery department of our university for surgical opinion. A specific diabetic foot pathway was introduced in 2013. One group of patients who were treated with previous method were evaluated retrospectively. Another group of patients who were treated after implementation of the pathway were evaluated prospectively. We compared treatment outcome between the two groups.
Results: We included 51 patients. Amputation rate was similar both the groups: 74% in the retrospective group not using the new pathway versus 73% in a prospective group that used the new pathway. Revision surgery was 39% in the retrospective group and 14% in the prospective group (p=0.05).
Conclusion: We recommend the use of this simple and cost-effective pathway to guide the interdisciplinary management of diabetic foot. A prospective study with more subjects would provide a better overview of this management pathway.