METHOD: A single-blind RCT was conducted among 30 randomized patients with dental phobia to either VRET or informational pamphlet (IP) condition. Primary outcome anxiety measures (VAS-A, MDAS and DFS) were evaluated at baseline, pre- and post-intervention, 1-week, 3-months and 6-months follow-up. Secondary outcome measures assessed were pre-post behavioral avoidance, temporal variations of heart rate and VR-experience during and post-VRET, and dental treatment acceptance in both conditions at 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: Intention to treat analysis, using a repeated measures MANOVA, revealed a multivariate interaction effect between time and condition (p = 0.015) for all primary outcome measures (all ps
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess preoperative predictors for intraoperative IPAA and review management.
DESIGN: This is a retrospective review.
SETTING: This study was conducted at Cleveland Clinic between January 2010 and May 2018.
PATIENTS: Patients ≥18 years of age who underwent ileoanal pouch surgery were included. Patients with successful pouch creation as planned were grouped as "successful IPAA creation." Operative reports of patients who underwent alternative procedures were reviewed to identify cases when the pouch was preoperatively planned but intraoperatively abandoned (IPAA-abandoned group). Multivariate logistic regression models were developed to determine predictors of intraoperative pouch abandonment. We also reviewed the management of patients in whom the initial pouch creation failed.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were preoperative predictors for intraoperative ileoanal pouch abandonment.
RESULTS: A total of 1438 patients were offered an ileoanal pouch; 21 (1.5%) experienced pouch abandonment due to inadequate reach (n = 17) and other technical reasons (n = 4). These patients underwent alternative procedures such as end or loop ileostomy with/without proctectomy. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated male sex (OR, 6.021; 95% CI, 1.540-23.534), BMI (OR, 1.217; 95% CI, 1.114-1.329), and a 2-stage procedure (OR, 14.510; 95% CI, 4.123-51.064) as independent factors associated with intraoperative abandonment of pouch creation. Alternative procedures were total proctocolectomy with end ileostomy (n = 14) and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy (n = 7). Ultimately, pouch creation was achieved in 6 of 21 patients after a median interval of 8.8 (range, 4.1-34.8) months. All patients had intentional weight loss before a reattempt and total abdominal colectomy with end ileostomy without proctectomy as their initial procedure.
LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective nature.
CONCLUSIONS: Ileoanal pouch abandonment is rare and can be mitigated by initial total abdominal colectomy and weight loss. Male, obese patients are at a higher risk of failure. Intraoperative assessment of ileoanal pouch feasibility should occur before rectal dissection. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. PREDICCIÓN MULTIVARIANTE DEL ABANDONO INTRAOPERATORIO DE LA ANASTOMOSIS ANAL CON BOLSA ILEAL: La proctocolectomía total restaurativa con anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal puede no ser posible en algunos pacientes debido a limitaciones técnicas intraoperatorias.Evaluar los predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal y revisar el manejo.Revisión retrospectiva.Cleveland Clinic entre Enero de 2010 y mayo de 2018.Pacientes > 18 años que se sometieron a cirugía de bolsa ileoanal. Los pacientes con una creación exitosa de la bolsa según lo planeado se agruparon como "creación exitosa de anastomosis de bolsa ileoanal". Se revisaron los informes operativos de los pacientes que se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos para identificar los casos en que la bolsa se planificó preoperatoriamente pero se abandonó intraoperatoriamente (grupo de "anastomosis anal de bolsa ileoanal abandonada"). Se desarrollaron modelos de regresión logística multivariante para determinar los predictores del abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa. También revisamos el manejo de pacientes que fallaron en la creación inicial de la bolsa.Predictores preoperatorios para el abandono intraoperatorio de la bolsa ileoanal.A un total de 1438 pacientes se les ofreció una bolsa ileoanal; 21 (1.5%) experimentaron abandono de la bolsa debido a un alcance inadecuado (n = 17) y otras razones técnicas (n = 4). Estos pacientes se sometieron a procedimientos alternativos como ileostomía final o de asa con / sin proctectomía. El análisis de regresión logística multivariante indicó género masculino (OR, 6.021; IC 95%, 1.540-23.534), índice de masa corporal (OR, 1.217; IC 95%, 1.114-1.329) y procedimiento en 2 etapas (OR, 14.510; IC 95%, 4.123-51.064) como factores independientes asociados con el abandono intraoperatorio de la creación de la bolsa. Los procedimientos alternativos fueron la proctocolectomía total con ileostomía final (n = 14) y la colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía (n = 7). Finalmente, la creación de la bolsa se logró en 6/21 pacientes después de un intervalo medio de 8.8 (rango, 4.1-34.8) meses. Todos los pacientes tuvieron pérdida de peso intencional antes de la reintenta y colectomía abdominal total con ileostomía final sin proctectomía como procedimiento inicial.Naturaleza retrospectiva.El abandono de la bolsa ileoanal es raro y puede mitigarse mediante la colectomía abdominal total inicial y la pérdida de peso. Los pacientes masculinos y obesos tienen un mayor riesgo de fracaso. La evaluación intraoperatoria de la viabilidad de la bolsa ileoanal debe ocurrir antes de la disección rectal. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B156. (Traducción-Dr. Yesenia Rojas-Kahlil).
METHODS: Two sets of 3-dimensional facial photographs (1 male and 1 female) each comprised 7 images that showed different dentoskeletal relations (ie, Class I, bimaxillary protrusion, bimaxillary retrusion, maxillary protrusion, maxillary retrusion, mandibular protrusion, and mandibular retrusion). The sets of photographs were shown to 101 laypersons (age, 28.87 ± 6.22 years) and 60 patients seeking orthognathic treatment (age, 27.12 ± 6.07 years). They rated their esthetic perceptions of the photographs on the basis of a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 (very unattractive) to 100 (very attractive).
RESULTS: The dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was ranked as the most attractive profile. Female orthognathic judges selected the retrusive maxilla while male orthognathic judges and male and female laypersons ranked the mandibular protrusion profile as the least attractive profile for both females and males. A bimaxillary protrusive female profile was viewed as more attractive by the orthognathic male (P = 0.006) and female (P = 0.006) judges, compared with female layperson judges. After adjustment for age, no statistically significant interaction between sex and judges (P >0.10) for all VAS scores were detected. For the female bimaxillary protrusive profile, orthognathic patient judges assigned a mean VAS score of 9.174 points higher than layperson judges (95% confidence interval, 3.11-15.24; P = 0.003).
CONCLUSION: Dentoskeletal Class I facial profile was generally considered the most attractive profile in both sexes; male and female orthognathic patients preferred a bimaxillary protrusive female profile. A concave facial profile was perceived as least attractive in both sexes.