METHODS: Human umbilical vein endothelial (HUVEC), fibroblast (CCD-18) and retinal ganglion (RGC-5) cells were cultured in medium containing different concentrations of FVCO. The proliferation, migration and morphological changes of cells were determined. The angiogenic effect of FVCO was evaluated by rat aortic assay. The therapeutic effect of FVCO on wound healing was further assessed in a wound excision model in Sprague Dawley rats. The expression of phospho-VEGFR2 (vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2) in HUVECs was detected by Western blot.
RESULTS: FVCO (6 and 12 µg/mL) significantly improved the proliferation of HUVEC, CCD-18 and RGC-5 cells (P < 0.05 or 0.01). FVCO (25 µg/mL) markedly increased the migration ability of CCD-18 and RGC-5 cells (P < 0.05). FVCO did not affect cell morphology as indicated by fluorescein diacetate (FDA), rhodamine 123 and Hoechst staining. FVCO (25, 50 and 100 µg/mL) significantly stimulated the ex vivo blood vessel formation as compared with negative control (P < 0.05). Rats in FVCO group had significantly smaller wound size, higher wound healing percentage, and shorter wound closure time when compared with control group since day 8 (P < 0.05), suggesting that oral FVCO administration notably promoted the wound healing process. FVCO treatment (6 and 12 µg/mL) significantly enhanced the phospho-VEGFR2 expression in HUVECs (P = 0.006 and 0.000, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Our study confirms a high angiogenic and wound healing potency of FVCO that might be mediated by the regulation of VEGF signing pathway.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a translation and cross-cultural adaptation of 3 modules of the Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey (OPUS): (1) lower-extremity functional status (LEFS), (2) client satisfaction with device and services (CSDS), and (3) HRQoL in Malay language, and analyze its psychometric properties.
STUDY DESIGN: Translation and validation study.
METHODS: This translation process consisted of 4 phases: (1) a forward-backward translation, (2) content and face validity by utilizing content and face validity indices, (3) pilot testing and psychometric analysis using exploratory factor analysis, and (4) test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: One item from OPUS Health Quality of Life Index-Malay pilot version, 5 items from OPUS LEFS-Malay pilot version, and 4 items of OPUS Satisfaction with Device and Services-Malay pilot version were deleted because of poor factor loading of <0.6. The final version of Modified OPUS HRQoL-M, Modified OPUS LEFS-M, and Modified OPUS CSDS-M consisted of 22 items, 15 items, and 17 items, respectively. The final versions of all 3 Modified OPUS Malay version possess good internal consistency of 0.854, 0.927, and 0.98, and intraclass correlation of 0.773, 0.871, and 0.821, respectively .
CONCLUSION: Modified OPUS HRQoL-M, Modified OPUS LEFS-M, and Modified OPUS CSDS-M are valid and reliable instruments to be adopted into the local Malaysia population.
Objectives: This pilot study compared the motor evoked potential (MEP) changes using different settings of rTMS in the post-ischemic stroke patient. The goal of the study is to identify effect sizes for a further trial and evaluate safety aspects.
Methods: Eight post-stroke patients with upper limb hemiparesis for at least six months duration were studied in a tertiary hospital in Northeast Malaysia. Quasi experimental design was applied and the participants were randomised into two groups using software generated random numbers. One of the two settings: i) inhibitory setting, or ii) facilitatory setting have been applied randomly during the first meeting. The motor evoked potential (MEP) were recorded before and after application of the rTMS setting. A week later, a similar procedure will be repeated but using different setting than the first intervention. Each patient will serve as their own control. Repeated measures ANOVA test was applied to determine the effect sizes for both intervention through the options of partial eta-squared (η2p).
Result: The study observed large effect sizes (η2p > 0.14) for both rTMS settings in the lesion and non-lesion sides. For safety aspects, no minor or major side effects associated with the rTMS was reported by the participants.
Conclusions: The partial eta square of MEP value for both rTMS settings (fascilitatory and inhibitory) in both lesion and non-lesion sides represents large effect sizes. We recommend further trial to increase number of sample in order to study the effectiveness of both settings in ischemic stroke patient. Our preliminary data showed both settings may improve the MEP of the upper extremity in the ischemic stroke patient. No significant improvement noted when comparing both settings.