Stamceller, med vekt på de mesenchymale: : cellebiologi og potensielt terapeutisk bruk

Abstract Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), found in the bone-marrow, the blood circulation, adipose tissue and fetal lungs, have recently been subject to great interest from researchers and clinicians worldwide. These cells provide the body with progenitors for mesodermal derived tissues such as bone, cartilage, muscles, fat and haematopoietic stroma. Whether MSCs also give rise to cells from other embryological derms, the ekto- and endoderm, is under investigation. Suggested explanations why MSCs seem to differentiate into cells of non-mesodermal tissues include transdifferentiation, de-and re-differentiation and cell-fusion. The existence of a pluripotent cell like the ones found in early embryological life is another possibility. How the MSCs function in vivo is subject to discussion. The cells have experimentally been shown to incorporate into certain tissues as functional cells. In yet other sites MSCs provide damaged tissues with humoral factors stimulating tissue repair. MSCs used in therapeutic medicine can be autologous cells (from the patient himself) or allogenous (from another individual). They can be mobilized to the circulation from the bone-marrow by colony stimulating factors or be extracted directly from tissues. MSCs harvested from the body can then be subject to manipulation ex vivo or simply undergo expansion. The cells will then, after intravenous infusion, find their way to the harmed tissues probably by different homing mechanisms. MSCs can also be transplanted directly into the tissue of interest. This paper will discuss the above and in addition include several studies on the potential use of MSCs in clinical practise

Mortality and readmission following hip fracture surgery: A retrospective study comparing conventional and fast-track care

Objective To compare the efficacies of two pathways—conventional and fast-track care—in patients with hip fracture. Design Retrospective single-centre study. Setting University hospital in middle Norway. Participants 1820 patients aged ≥65 years with hip fracture (intracapsular, intertrochanteric or subtrochanteric). Interventions 788 patients were treated according to conventional care from April 2008 to September 2011, and 1032 patients were treated according to fast-track care from October 2011 to December 2013. Primary and secondary outcome Primary: mortality and readmission to hospital, within 365 days follow-up. Secondary: length of stay. Results We found no statistically significant differences in mortality and readmission rate between patients in the fast-track and conventional care models within 365 days after the initial hospital admission. The conventional care group had a higher, no statistical significant mortality HR of 1.10 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.31, p=0.326) without and 1.16 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.40, p=0.118) with covariate adjustment. Regarding the readmission, the conventional care group sub-HR was 1.02 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.18, p=0.822) without and 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.12, p=0.644) with adjusting for covariates. Length of stay and time to surgery was statistically significant shorter for patients who received fast-track care, a mean difference of 3.4 days and 6 hours, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in sex, type of fracture, age or Charlson Comorbidity Index score at baseline between patients in the two pathways. Conclusions There was insufficient evidence to show an impact of fast-track care on mortality and readmission. Length of stay and time to surgery were decreased

Preventing spread of SARS-CoV-2 and preparing for the COVID-19 outbreak in the surgical department : perspectives from two Scandinavian countries

A COVID-19 pandemic was declared on March 11 by the World Health Organization (WHO). The first cases of COVID-19 were confirmed on January 31 in Sweden and on February 26 in Norway. Despite being similar countries with universal healthcare systems, the governmental approaches to mitigation of the epidemic have varied considerably. Norway initiated a societal lockdown effective from March 12, the same day as the first confirmed death. Sweden has initiated a more laxed and gradual strategy based on the appeal for a strong personal sense of responsibility to mitigate the viral spread. In both countries, the first weeks of preparation has seen a strong reduction in elective surgery, with several implemented principles to mitigate SARS-CoV-2 spread and prepare for surgical care for COVID-19 diseases as needed. This invited leading article gives a brief overview of some of the early experiences of the outbreak in two Scandinavian countries

Health care services and costs after hip fracture, comparing conventional versus standardised care: A retrospective study with 12-month follow-up

Aims: To compare costs related to a standardised versus conventional hospital care for older patients after fragility hip fracture and determine whether a shift in hospital care led to cost-shifts between specialists and primary health care. Methods: We retrospectively collected and calculated volumes of care and accompanying costs from fracture time until 12 months after hospital discharge for 979 patients. All patients aged ≥ 65 years had fragility hip fractures. The data set had few missing data points because of the patient registry, administrative databases, and a low migration rate. Results: Total costs per patient at 12 months were EUR 78 164 (standard deviation [SD] 58 056) and EUR 78 068 (SD 60 131) for conventional and standardised care, respectively (p = 0.480). Total specialist care costs were significantly lower for the standardised care group (p < 0.001). Total primary care costs were higher for the standardised care group (p = 0.424). Total costs per day of life for the conventional and standardised care groups were EUR 434 and EUR 371, respectively (p = 0.003). Patients in the standardised care group had 17 more days of life. Conclusions: Implementation of a standardised care to improve outcomes for patients with hip fracture caused lower specialist care costs and higher primary care costs, indicating care- and cost-shifts from specialist to primary health care

Virus transmission during orthopedic surgery on patients with COVID-19 – a brief narrative review

Background and purpose — COVID-19 is among the most impactful pandemics that the society has experienced. Orthopedic surgery involves procedures generating droplets and aerosols and there is concern amongst surgeons that otherwise rational precautionary principles are being set aside due to lack of scientific evidence and a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). This narrative review attempts to translate relevant knowledge into practical recommendations for healthcare workers involved in orthopedic surgery on patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Patients and methods — We unsystematically searched in PubMed, reference lists, and the WHO’s web page for relevant publications concerning problems associated with the PPE used in perioperative practice when a patient is COVID-19 positive or suspected to be. A specific search for literature regarding COVID-19 was extended to include publications from the SARS epidemic in 2002/3. Results — Transmission of infectious viruses from patient to surgeon during surgery is possible, but does not appear to be a considerable problem in clinical practice. Seal-leakage is a problem with surgical masks. Due to the lack of studies and reports, the possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patient to surgeon during droplet- and aerosol-generating procedures is unknown. Interpretation — Surgical masks should be used only in combination with a widely covering visor and when a respirator (N95, FFP2, P3) is not made available. Furthermore, basic measures to reduce shedding of droplets and aerosols during surgery and correct and consistent use of personal protective equipment is important

Virus transmission during orthopedic surgery on patients with COVID-19 – a brief narrative review

Background and purpose — COVID-19 is among the most impactful pandemics that the society has experienced. Orthopedic surgery involves procedures generating droplets and aerosols and there is concern amongst surgeons that otherwise rational precautionary principles are being set aside due to lack of scientific evidence and a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). This narrative review attempts to translate relevant knowledge into practical recommendations for healthcare workers involved in orthopedic surgery on patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Patients and methods — We unsystematically searched in PubMed, reference lists, and the WHO’s web page for relevant publications concerning problems associated with the PPE used in perioperative practice when a patient is COVID-19 positive or suspected to be. A specific search for literature regarding COVID-19 was extended to include publications from the SARS epidemic in 2002/3. Results — Transmission of infectious viruses from patient to surgeon during surgery is possible, but does not appear to be a considerable problem in clinical practice. Seal-leakage is a problem with surgical masks. Due to the lack of studies and reports, the possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patient to surgeon during droplet- and aerosol-generating procedures is unknown. Interpretation — Surgical masks should be used only in combination with a widely covering visor and when a respirator (N95, FFP2, P3) is not made available. Furthermore, basic measures to reduce shedding of droplets and aerosols during surgery and correct and consistent use of personal protective equipment is important

Virus transmission during orthopedic surgery on patients with COVID-19 – a brief narrative review

Background and purpose — COVID-19 is among the most impactful pandemics that the society has experienced. Orthopedic surgery involves procedures generating droplets and aerosols and there is concern amongst surgeons that otherwise rational precautionary principles are being set aside due to lack of scientific evidence and a shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). This narrative review attempts to translate relevant knowledge into practical recommendations for healthcare workers involved in orthopedic surgery on patients with known or suspected COVID-19. Patients and methods — We unsystematically searched in PubMed, reference lists, and the WHO’s web page for relevant publications concerning problems associated with the PPE used in perioperative practice when a patient is COVID-19 positive or suspected to be. A specific search for literature regarding COVID-19 was extended to include publications from the SARS epidemic in 2002/3. Results — Transmission of infectious viruses from patient to surgeon during surgery is possible, but does not appear to be a considerable problem in clinical practice. Seal-leakage is a problem with surgical masks. Due to the lack of studies and reports, the possibility of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from patient to surgeon during droplet- and aerosol-generating procedures is unknown. Interpretation — Surgical masks should be used only in combination with a widely covering visor and when a respirator (N95, FFP2, P3) is not made available. Furthermore, basic measures to reduce shedding of droplets and aerosols during surgery and correct and consistent use of personal protective equipment is important

Trochanteric stabilizing plate in the treatment of trochanteric fractures: a scoping review

Background and purpose — The trochanteric stabilizing plate (TSP) may be used as an adjunct to a sliding hip screw (SHS) in the treatment of trochanteric fractures to increase construct stability. We performed a scoping review of the literature to clarify when and how the TSP may be useful. Methods — A systematic search was performed in 5 databases and followed by a backwards-and-forwards citation search of the identified papers. 24 studies were included. Results — 6 biomechanical studies and 18 clinical studies were included in the review. The studies presented mainly low-level evidence. All studies were on unstable trochanteric fractures or fracture models. Due to the heterogeneity of methods and reporting, we were not able to perform a meta-analysis. In the biomechanical trials, the TSP appeared to increase stability compared with SHS alone, up to a level comparable with intramedullary nails (IMNs). We identified 1,091 clinical cases in the literature where a TSP had been used. There were 82 (8%) reoperations. The rate of complications and reoperations for SHS plus TSP was similar to previous reports on SHS alone and IMN. It was not possible to conclude whether the TSP gave better clinical results, when compared with either SHS alone or with IMN. Interpretation — The heterogeneity of methods and reporting precluded any clear recommendations on when to use the TSP, or if it should be used at all