Material and Methods: The study is a retrospective series of 15 patients operated by PTELD. Bladder dysfunction was classified as incomplete CES (CESI) and complete CES retention (CESR). Bladder / motor recovery rate and its timing, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Visual Analogue Score (VAS), patient satisfaction index, and sexual dysfunction were used to measure the outcome objectively. Additionally, in CESR patients, post-void residual (PVR) urine was measured by sonography. Complications and technical problems were noted.
Results: There were ten patients of CESI and five patients of CESR. The average follow-up was 20.33(12.05) months. Bladder symptoms recovery was 100%, and motor recovery was 80%. VAS for back pain recovered to 0.53(0.52) from 8(2.39). VAS for leg pain recovered to 0.13(0.35) from 9.20(1.32). ODI improved to 6.07(2.85) from 77.52(13.20). The time to the recovery of bladder function was 1.47(1.55) days. All CESR patient's abnormal PVR urine was normalised at five weeks post-operative. No complications were reported. However, five technical executional problems occurred.
Conclusion: PTELD can be considered for CES treatment due to its substantial and quick recovery advantages. However, more evidence support is needed to make it a practice recommendation.
Material and Methods: A total of 55 patients who had undergone conventional surgery (Group A) are compared with 45 patients of UBS (Group B) in TSS. The primary outcome measure of Modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association score (m JOA) with neurological complications and dural injury were assessed. Secondary outcome measures of total blood loss (TBL), time duration of surgery (ORT) and length of hospital stay (LHS) were analysed.
Results: The pre-operative mJOA score 5.00(4.00-6.00) in the group A and 5.00(4.00-6.00) in the group B improved to 7.00(7.00-8.00) in the group A and 9.00(9.00-10.00) in the group B, respectively (P<0.001) at final average follow-up of 117.55 months for group A and 75.69 months in group B. More significant grade of myelopathy improvement and mJOA recovery rate (RR) were noted in group B. The TBL, ORT and LHS were more favourable in group B as compared to group A (p<0.0001). The group A had 9 (16.36%) neurological deficits compared to 2 (4.44%) in group B (p<0.001). Dural tears occurred in both groups (A=11, B=9). It was more frequent and not repairable in group A but without significant statistical difference.
Conclusion: UBS can reduce neurological deficits and improve outcomes in TSS. Secondarily, reduced blood loss, lesser surgical time and reduced LHS are significant added advantages of this new technology.
METHODS: In this cross-sectional comparative study, a total of 120 participants having moderate to severe gingivitis/periodontitis with an age range of 40 to 65 years were divided into two groups on the basis of FBG range taken from an antecubital vein: non-diabetic (≤126, n=60) and diabetic (≥126, n=60) groups. Blood oozing during the routine periodontal examination from the periodontal pocket was recorded using a test strip of a glucose self-monitoring device (AccuSure®Simple) as GCBG. Concomitantly FCBG was collected from the fingertip. These three parameters were statistically analyzed using the Student's t-test and the one-way ANOVA test and correlated with Pearson's correlation coefficient for both groups.
RESULTS: The mean and standard deviation for the three parameters GCBG, FBG, and FCBG were 93.78±12.03, 89.98±13.22, and 93.08±15.56, respectively, for the non-diabetic group and 154.52±45.05, 159±47.00, and 162.23±50.60 subsequently for the diabetic group. Comparing glucose level parameters among the non-diabetic and diabetic groups suggests a significant difference with the p-value <0.001*(inter-group). ANOVA test was done for both groups suggesting no significant difference among these three methods of measuring blood glucose level, where the p-value found was 0.272 for the non-diabetic and 0.665 for the diabetic group (intra-group comparison). Pearson's correlation values suggested a good positive correlation for the non-diabetic group, with parameters GCBG and FBG (r=0.864), GCBG and FCBG (r=0.936), and FBG and FCBG (r=0.837). The diabetic group's Pearson's correlation suggested a highly significant positive correlation between three different methods in which GCBG and FBG (r=0.978), GCBG and FBG (r=0.977), and FBG and FCBG (r= 0.982).
CONCLUSION: Blood oozing from the periodontal pocket during routine oral hygiene examination can be utilized by dental healthcare professionals to screen pre-diabetic patients which can be used as a simple and less invasive method for DM patients.