31 research outputs found

    Italian consensus conference on guidelines for conservative treatment on lower limb muscle injuries in athlete.

    Get PDF
    Provide the state of the art concerning (1) biology and aetiology, (2) classification, (3) clinical assessment and (4) conservative treatment of lower limb muscle injuries (MI) in athletes. Seventy international experts with different medical backgrounds participated in the consensus conference. They discussed and approved a consensus composed of four sections which are presented in these documents. This paper represents a synthesis of the consensus conference, the following four sections are discussed: (i) The biology and aetiology of MIs. A definition of MI was formulated and some key points concerning physiology and pathogenesis of MIs were discussed. (ii) The MI classification. A classification of MIs was proposed. (iii) The MI clinical assessment, in which were discussed anamnesis, inspection and clinical examination and are provided the relative guidelines. (iv) The MI conservative treatment, in which are provided the guidelines for conservative treatment based on the severity of the lesion. Furthermore, instrumental therapy and pharmacological treatment were discussed. Knowledge of the aetiology and biology of MIs is an essential prerequisite in order to plan and conduct a rehabilitation plan. Another important aspect is the use of a rational MI classification on prognostic values. We propose a classification based on radiological investigations performed by ultrasonography and MRI strongly linked to prognostic factors. Furthermore, the consensus conference results will able to provide fundamental guidelines for diagnostic and rehabilitation practice, also considering instrumental therapy and pharmacological treatment of MI. Expert opinion, level IV

    Italian consensus conference on guidelines for conservative treatment on lower limb muscle injuries in athlete

    Get PDF
    Provide the state of the art concerning (1) biology and aetiology, (2) classification, (3) clinical assessment and (4) conservative treatment of lower limb muscle injuries (MI) in athletes. Seventy international experts with different medical backgrounds participated in the consensus conference. They discussed and approved a consensus composed of four sections which are presented in these documents. This paper represents a synthesis of the consensus conference, the following four sections are discussed: (i) The biology and aetiology of MIs. A definition of MI was formulated and some key points concerning physiology and pathogenesis of MIs were discussed. (ii) The MI classification. A classification of MIs was proposed. (iii) The MI clinical assessment, in which were discussed anamnesis, inspection and clinical examination and are provided the relative guidelines. (iv) The MI conservative treatment, in which are provided the guidelines for conservative treatment based on the severity of the lesion. Furthermore, instrumental therapy and pharmacological treatment were discussed. Knowledge of the aetiology and biology of MIs is an essential prerequisite in order to plan and conduct a rehabilitation plan. Another important aspect is the use of a rational MI classification on prognostic values. We propose a classification based on radiological investigations performed by ultrasonography and MRI strongly linked to prognostic factors. Furthermore, the consensus conference results will able to provide fundamental guidelines for diagnostic and rehabilitation practice, also considering instrumental therapy and pharmacological treatment of MI. Expert opinion, level IV

    Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

    Get PDF
    Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme
    corecore