MATERIALS AND METHODS: It is a prospective observational study. A tension-releasing suture was prepared by appending a polyglactin suture to one end of the MiniArc sling tip fiber, which could be used to manipulate the sling tip when postoperative voiding dysfunction was identified. Primary outcome measure was the number of patients requiring tension-releasing suture manipulation to treat postoperative voiding dysfunctions successfully.
RESULTS: Twelve of the 131 (9.2%) patients who underwent SIS procedure for urodynamic stress incontinence surgery required tension-releasing suture manipulation due to voiding dysfunction during the immediate postoperative period with a good outcome. Postoperative overall objective and subjective cure rates were 90.5% and 88.9% (126 available patients at 1-year follow up, mean 19.2 ± 8.0 months), respectively. The subanalysis of the objective and subjective cure rates of the group with tension-releasing suture manipulation were 91.7% (11/12) and 91.7% (11/12), and those of the group without tension-releasing suture manipulation were 90.4% (103/114) and 88.6% (101/114), respectively, at 1-year follow up.
CONCLUSION: Tension-releasing suture is effective in the management of immediate postoperative voiding dysfunction in an SIS procedure. SIS operation has good short-term objective and subjective cure rates for female urodynamic stress incontinence.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of skin antisepsis as part of CVC care for reducing catheter-related BSIs, catheter colonisation, and patient mortality and morbidities.
SEARCH METHODS: In May 2016 we searched: The Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register; The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library); Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Epub Ahead of Print); Ovid EMBASE and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. We also searched clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed any type of skin antiseptic agent used either alone or in combination, compared with one or more other skin antiseptic agent(s), placebo or no skin antisepsis in patients with a CVC in place.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the studies for their eligibility, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We expressed our results in terms of risk ratio (RR), absolute risk reduction (ARR) and number need to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion, but only 12 studies contributed data, with a total of 3446 CVCs assessed. The total number of participants enrolled was unclear as some studies did not provide such information. The participants were mainly adults admitted to intensive care units, haematology oncology units or general wards. Most studies assessed skin antisepsis prior to insertion and regularly thereafter during the in-dwelling period of the CVC, ranging from every 24 h to every 72 h. The methodological quality of the included studies was mixed due to wide variation in their risk of bias. Most trials did not adequately blind the participants or personnel, and four of the 12 studies had a high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data.Three studies compared different antisepsis regimens with no antisepsis. There was no clear evidence of a difference in all outcomes examined, including catheter-related BSI, septicaemia, catheter colonisation and number of patients who required systemic antibiotics for any of the three comparisons involving three different antisepsis regimens (aqueous povidone-iodine, aqueous chlorhexidine and alcohol compared with no skin antisepsis). However, there were great uncertainties in all estimates due to underpowered analyses and the overall very low quality of evidence presented.There were multiple head-to-head comparisons between different skin antiseptic agents, with different combinations of active substance and base solutions. The most frequent comparison was chlorhexidine solution versus povidone-iodine solution (any base). There was very low quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) that chlorhexidine may reduce catheter-related BSI compared with povidone-iodine (RR of 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.99; ARR 2.30%, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.70%). This evidence came from four studies involving 1436 catheters. None of the individual subgroup comparisons of aqueous chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine, alcoholic chlorhexidine versus aqueous povidone-iodine and alcoholic chlorhexidine versus alcoholic povidone-iodine showed clear differences for catheter-related BSI or mortality (and were generally underpowered). Mortality was only reported in a single study.There was very low quality evidence that skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine may also reduce catheter colonisation relative to povidone-iodine (RR of 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84; ARR 8%, 95% CI 3% to 12%; ; five studies, 1533 catheters, downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness and inconsistency).Evaluations of other skin antiseptic agents were generally in single, small studies, many of which did not report the primary outcome of catheter-related BSI. Trials also poorly reported other outcomes, such as skin infections and adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether cleaning the skin around CVC insertion sites with antiseptic reduces catheter related blood stream infection compared with no skin cleansing. Skin cleansing with chlorhexidine solution may reduce rates of CRBSI and catheter colonisation compared with cleaning with povidone iodine. These results are based on very low quality evidence, which means the true effects may be very different. Moreover these results may be influenced by the nature of the antiseptic solution (i.e. aqueous or alcohol-based). Further RCTs are needed to assess the effectiveness and safety of different skin antisepsis regimens in CVC care; these should measure and report critical clinical outcomes such as sepsis, catheter-related BSI and mortality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospectively ECG-triggered CCTA was performed using five commercially available CT scanners: 64-detector-row single source CT (SSCT), 2 × 32-detector-row-dual source CT (DSCT), 2 × 64-detector-row DSCT and 320-detector-row SSCT scanners. Absorbed doses were measured in 34 organs using pre-calibrated optically stimulated luminescence dosimeters (OSLDs) placed inside a standard female adult anthropomorphic phantom. HE was calculated from the measured organ doses and compared to the HE derived from the air kerma-length product (PKL) using the conversion coefficient of 0.014 mSv∙mGy-1∙cm-1 for the chest region.
RESULTS: Both breasts and lungs received the highest radiation dose during CCTA examination. The highest HE was received from 2 × 32-detector-row DSCT scanner (6.06 ± 0.72 mSv), followed by 64-detector-row SSCT (5.60 ± 0.68 and 5.02 ± 0.73 mSv), 2 × 64-detector-row DSCT (1.88 ± 0.25 mSv) and 320-detector-row SSCT (1.34 ± 0.48 mSv) scanners. HE calculated from the measured organ doses were about 38 to 53% higher than the HE derived from the PKL-to-HE conversion factor.
CONCLUSION: The radiation doses received from a prospectively ECG-triggered CCTA are relatively small and are depending on the scanner technology and imaging protocols. HE as low as 1.34 and 1.88 mSv can be achieved in prospectively ECG-triggered CCTA using 320-detector-row SSCT and 2 × 64-detector-row DSCT scanners.
METHODS: In this study, we generated whole genome sequences of eight clinical strains of Mtb that were isolated from the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of patients presenting with tuberculous meningitis (TBM) in Malaysia, and compared them to the genomes of H37Rv and other respiratory Mtb genomes either downloaded from public databases or extracted from local sputum isolates. We aimed to find genomic features that might be distinctly different between CSF-derived and respiratory Mtb.
RESULTS: Genome-wide comparisons revealed rearrangements (translocations, inversions, insertions and deletions) and non-synonymous SNPs in our CSF-derived strains that were not observed in the respiratory Mtb genomes used for comparison. These rearranged segments were rich in genes for PE (proline-glutamate)/PPE (proline-proline-glutamate), transcriptional and membrane proteins. Similarly, most of the ns SNPs common in CSF strains were noted in genes encoding PE/PPE proteins. Protein globularity differences were observed among mycobacteria from CSF and respiratory sources and in proteins previously reported to be associated with TB meningitis. Transcription factors and other transcription regulators featured prominently in these proteins. Homologs of proteins associated with Streptococcus pneumoniae meningitis and Neisseria meningitidis virulence were identified in neuropathogenic as well as respiratory mycobacterial spp. examined in this study.
DISCUSSION: The occurrence of in silico genetic differences in CSF-derived but not respiratory Mtb suggests their possible involvement in the pathogenesis of TBM. However, overall findings in this comparative analysis support the postulation that TB meningeal infection is more likely to be related to the expression of multiple virulence factors on interaction with host defences than to CNS tropism associated with specific genetic traits.