Rate and Volume of Intermittent Enteral Feeding

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141999/1/jpen0125.pd

Rationale and design of the balANZ trial: A randomised controlled trial of low GDP, neutral pH versus standard peritoneal dialysis solution for the preservation of residual renal function

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The main hypothesis of this study is that neutral pH, low glucose degradation product (GDP) peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluid better preserves residual renal function in PD patients over time compared with conventional dialysate.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Inclusion criteria are adult PD patients (CAPD or APD) aged 18-81 years whose first dialysis was within 90 days prior to or following enrolment and who have a residual GFR ≥ 5 ml/min/1.73 m², a urine output ≥ 400 ml/day and an ability to understand the nature and requirements of this trial. Pregnant or lactating patients or individuals with an active infection at the time of enrolment, a contra-indication to PD or participation in any other clinical trial where an intervention is designed to moderate rate of change of residual renal function are excluded. Patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either neutral pH, low GDP dialysis solution (Balance^®) or conventional dialysis solution (Stay.safe^®) for a period of 2 years. During this 2 year study period, urinary urea and clearance measurements will be performed at 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18 and 24 months. The primary outcome measure will be the slope of residual renal function decline, adjusted for centre and presence of diabetic nephropathy. Secondary outcome measures will include time from initiation of peritoneal dialysis to anuria, peritoneal small solute clearance, peritoneal transport status, peritoneal ultrafiltration, technique survival, patient survival, peritonitis rates and adverse events. A total of 185 patients has been recruited into the trial.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This investigator-initiated study has been designed to provide evidence to help nephrologists determine the optimal dialysis solution for preserving residual renal function in PD patients.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number: ACTRN12606000044527</p

Failure of distal biceps repair by gapping

BACKGROUND: We describe the clinical, radiological and surgical findings of failed distal biceps repair by gapping and report the functional outcomes following revision repair. METHODS: A retrospective review of five consecutive patients was conducted. Patients presented with radial-sided forearm pain after their distal biceps fixation. All patients had less than 5 cm of retraction of the biceps muscle belly, a palpable tendon although the manoeuvre was painful with weakness on resisted supination. Flexed abducted supinated magnetic resonance imaging (FABS MRI) showed a gap between the distal end of the tendon and the footprint on the radial tuberosity. RESULTS: Mean FEA score at presentation was 44/100 (35 to 49). Mean time to re-operation was 18 months (range 4 months to 36 months). At revision, the distal end of the tendon was retracted and not making contact with the bone. All cases were revised to an in-bone endobutton repair. Mean postoperative Functional Elbow Assessment (FEA) scores undertaken at a mean of 14 months (range 5 months to 22 months) after revision improved to 95/100 (90 to 100). CONCLUSIONS: Patients presenting with persistent radial sided forearm pain and weakness on provocative testing after distal biceps repair with a seemingly intact repair should be investigated with FABS MRI to look for evidence of failure of repair by gapping. Revision repair with an anatomic in-bone technique can lead to good results