METHODS: This study will be a pilot, interventional, randomized, 2-armed, parallel, singled-masked, controlled trial. A total of 40 diabetes mellitus patients with peripheral neuropathy will be recruited and assigned randomly into 2 groups (moxibustion group and waiting group) at a 1:1 ratio. This trial consists of an 8-week intervention period and a 4-week follow-up period. During the intervention period, the moxibustion group will take 3 moxibustion sessions per week, whereas no intervention will be done on the waiting group to act as the control group. The outcome will be assessed by an outcome assessor who is unaware of the group assignment. The primary outcome will be pain assessment measured with algometry, Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs pain scale, visual analogue scale, and neuropathy pain scale. The secondary outcome will be an evaluation of functional performance capacity with 6 minutes walking test, evaluation of the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure, and serum HbA1c and albumin levels.
DISCUSSION: We hope that this trial will provide valuable insights on the efficacy of moxibustion in the management of diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry No.: NCT04894461 (URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04894461?term=NCT04894461&draw=2&rank=1) Registered on May 20, 2021.
METHODS: The study was an interventional and crossover comparison. Twenty-one patients with TN were administered with LTG in comparison to CBZ. The clinical trials comprised two phases of 40 days each, with an intervening three-day washout period. The final titration in dose for LTG was 400 mg and 1,200 mg for CBZ. Efficacy of the medications involved was determined by visual analog scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS). Side effects were recorded through marking of the profiles of side effects encountered on administration of LTG and CBZ, together with baseline haematological, hepatic and renal investigations.
RESULTS: Both on VAS and VRS assessments, in terms of proportion of patients, CBZ benefitted 90.5% (19/21) of the patients with pain relief (p pain relief from LTG and 19 from CBZ, 77% (10/13) obtained a "complete" degree of pain relief from LTG, as compared with 21% (4/19) from CBZ. On VRS assessment, with LTG, 84% (11/13) of the patients accomplished "much better" degree of pain relief, as compared with 26% (5/19) with CBZ. On LTG, 67% (14/21) of patients endured general pharmacological side effects, as compared with 57% (12/21) of patients on CBZ (p > 0.05). Meanwhile, LTG inflicted 14% (3/21) of the patients with haematological, hepatic and renal derangements, as compared with 48% (10/21) on CBZ.
CONCLUSION: LTG is generally an effective and safe treatment for management of TN, compared to CBZ.
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.
DESIGN: Two-centre, randomised, controlled trial with concealed allocation, blinded assessors and intention-to-treat analysis.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-two adults who had undergone cardiac surgery via a median sternotomy were included.
INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly allocated to one of two groups at 4 (SD 1) days after surgery. The control group received the usual advice to restrict their upper limb use for 4 to 6 weeks (ie, restrictive sternal precautions). The experimental group received advice to use pain and discomfort as the safe limits for their upper limb use during daily activities (ie, less restrictive precautions) for the same period. Both groups received postoperative individualised education in hospital and via weekly telephone calls for 6 weeks.
OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was physical function assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery. Secondary outcomes included upper limb function, pain, kinesophobia, and health-related quality of life. Outcomes were measured before hospital discharge and at 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Adherence to sternal precautions was recorded.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in physical function between the groups at 4 weeks (MD 1.0, 95% CI -0.2 to 2.3) and 12 weeks (MD 0.4, 95% CI -0.9 to 1.6) postoperatively. There were no statistically significant between-group differences in secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Modified (ie, less restrictive) sternal precautions for people following cardiac surgery had similar effects on physical recovery, pain and health-related quality of life as usual restrictive sternal precautions. Similar outcomes can be anticipated regardless of whether people following cardiac surgery are managed with traditional or modified sternal precautions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ANZCTRN12615000968572. [Katijjahbe MA, Granger CL, Denehy L, Royse A, Royse C, Bates R, Logie S, Nur Ayub MA, Clarke S, El-Ansary D (2018) Standard restrictive sternal precautions and modified sternal precautions had similar effects in people after cardiac surgery via median sternotomy ('SMART' Trial): a randomised trial. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 97-106].