Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Fulltext Inferior Healing Rate in Isolated Meniscal Repair than that in Meniscal Repair with Concomitant ACL Reconstruction Evaluated with MRI
    Isono M, Koga H, Nakagawa Y, Nakamura T, Sekiya I, Katagiri H
    Malays Orthop J, 2023 Mar;17(1):61-69.
    PMID: 37064625 DOI: 10.5704/MOJ.2303.008
    INTRODUCTION: Isolated meniscal repair has been suggested as one of the contributing factors in unhealed meniscal repair. The purpose of this study was to compare the healing rate between isolated meniscal repair and meniscal repair with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a standardised assessment method after propensity score matching.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Accuracy of the Crues' grading system for meniscal healing was validated using second-look arthroscopy as the reference standard in 17 patients. Propensity score matching (one-to-one) was performed between 26 patients who underwent isolated meniscal repair and 98 patients who underwent meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR. Patients were matched for sex, age, side and zone of the meniscal repair, and number of sutures. Healing rates at one year which were evaluated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were compared between the two groups.

    RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of the Crues' grading system on multiple plane MRI for meniscal healing were 100% and 83.3%, respectively. Both the isolated meniscal repair group and the meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR group included 21 patients after propensity score matching. Baseline characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. The healing rate was significantly lower in the isolated meniscal repairs group (14.3%) than in the meniscal repair concomitant with ACLR group (47.6%, P=0.04).

    CONCLUSION: The healing rate for isolated meniscal repair using a standardised MRI assessment method was inferior to that of meniscal repair with concomitant ACLR after propensity score matching.

  2. Fulltext A multinational phase IIb/III trial of beraprost sodium, an orally active prostacyclin analogue, in patients with primary glomerular disease or nephrosclerosis (CASSIOPEIR trial), rationale and study design
    Nakamoto H, Fujita T, Origasa H, Isono M, Kurumatani H, Okada K, et al.
    BMC Nephrol, 2014;15:153.
    PMID: 25233856 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2369-15-153
    Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is public health concern even in Asian countries. TRK-100STP, a sustained release tablet of an orally-active prostacyclin analogue, beraprost sodium, is suggested to suppress worsening of some parameters of renal filtration function, containing in slope of 1/serum creatinine (1/SCr) vs. time in a phase II clinical trial.
  3. Effects of Sustained-Release Beraprost in Patients With Primary Glomerular Disease or Nephrosclerosis: CASSIOPEIR Study Results
    Nakamoto H, Yu XQ, Kim S, Origasa H, Zheng H, Chen J, et al.
    Ther Apher Dial, 2020 Feb;24(1):42-55.
    PMID: 31119846 DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.12840
    TRK-100STP, a sustained-release preparation of the orally active prostacyclin analogue beraprost sodium, targets renal hypoxia. This study aimed to show the superiority of TRK-100STP over placebos in patients with chronic kidney disease (with either primary glomerular disease or nephrosclerosis) to determine the recommended dose. CASSIOPEIR (Chronic Renal Failure Asian Study with Oral PGI2 Derivative for Evaluating Improvement of Renal Function) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 160 sites in seven Asia-Pacific countries and regions. Eligible patients (n = 892) were randomized to TRK-100STP 120, 240 μg, or placebo for a treatment period of up to 4 years. The primary efficacy endpoint was time to first occurrence of a renal composite: doubling of serum creatinine or occurrence of end-stage renal disease. No significant differences were observed in composite endpoints between TRK-100STP and placebo (P = 0.5674). Hazard ratios (95% CI) in the TRK-100STP 120 and 240 μg vs. placebo groups were 0.98 (0.78, 1.22) and 0.91 (0.72, 1.14), respectively. The overall incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions was comparable between treatment arms.
Related Terms
    Try searching for something
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links