Functional treatment versus plaster for simple elbow dislocations (FuncSiE): a randomized trial

Background. Elbow dislocations can be classified as simple or complex. Simple dislocations are characterized by the absence of fractures, while complex dislocations are associated with fractures. After reduction of a simple dislocation, treatment options include immobilization in a static plaster for different periods of time or so-called functional treatment. Functional treatment is characterized by early active motion within the limits of pain with or without the use of a sling or hinged brace. Theoretically, functional treatment should prevent stiffness without introducing increased joint instability. The primary aim of this randomized controlled trial is to compare early functional treatment versus plaster immobilization following simple dislocations of the elbow. Methods/Design. The design of the study will be a multicenter randomized controlled trial of 100 patients who have sustained a simple elbow dislocation. After reduction of the dislocation, patients are randomized between a pressure bandage for 5-7 days and early functional treatment or a plaster in 90 degrees flexion, neutral position for pro-supination for a period of three weeks. In the functional group, treatment is started with early active motion within the limits of pain. Function, pain, and radiographic recovery will be evaluated at regular intervals over the subsequent 12 months. The primary outcome measure is the Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score. The secondary outcome measures are the Mayo Elbow Performance Index, Oxford elbow score, pain level at both sides, range of motion of the elbow joint at both sides, rate of secondary interventions and complication rates in both groups (secondary dislocation, instability, relaxation), health-related quality of life (Short-Form 36 and EuroQol-5D), radiographic appearance of the elbow joint (degenerative changes and heterotopic ossifications), costs, and cost-effectiveness. Discussion. The successful completion of this trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of a functional treatment for the management of simple elbow dislocations. Trial Registration. The trial is registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR2025)

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p

Visualisation and characterisation of mononuclear phagocytes in the chicken respiratory tract using CSF1R-transgenic chickens

Additional file 2. Location of B cells, T cells and follicular dendritic cells (FDC) in the lung of MacReporter chickens. The BALT region of 5 to 7 week old non-vaccination animals were analysed for B, T and FCD cells. Isotype controls were used to standardise the microscope and examine aspecific binding before acquiring images (A-B). The GC of MacReporter animals are tightly packed with Bu1-CSF1R-eGFP+ FDC cells and Bu1+CSF1R-eGFP- B cells (C) with few Bu1+ B cells found in the parabronchi (F). CD3+ T cells are disperse within and outside the GC (D) and parabronchi (G). CSF1R-eGFP+ FDC cells express Fc receptors and trap immunoglobulin by expressing IgY (E) and CSF1R-eGFP+ IgY+ FDC are rarely detected out with the GC, BALT region of the lung. GC are indicated by white dashed lines

The PINCH-Phone: a new screenings method for recurrent incisional hernias

Background: Debate persists on the optimal management of incisional hernias due to paucity of accurate recurrence rates. Reoperation rates implicate a severe underestimation of the risk of a recurrence. Therefore, long-term postoperative clinic visits allowing physical examination of the abdomen are deemed necessary. However, these are time and costs consuming. Aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a new screenings method for recurrent hernias, the ‘PINCH-Phone’ (Post-INCisional-Hernia repair-Phone). Methods: The PINCH-Phone is a telephone questionnaire. In this multicenter prospective study, the PINCH-Phone was answered by patients after incisional hernia repair. Afterwards the patients were seen at the clinic and physical examination was done to detect any recurrences. Results: The PINCH-Phone questions were answered by 210 patients with a median postoperative follow-up of 36 months. Fifty-six patients were seen after multiple incisional hernia repairs. In 137 patients who had replied positively to one or more questions, 28 recurrent incisional hernias were detected at physical examination. Six recurrences were noted in 73 patients who had replied negatively to all questions. The overall sensitivity and specificity of the PINCH-Phone were 82% and 38%, respectively. Conclusion: The PINCH-Phone appears a simple and valuable screenings method for recurrences after incisional hernia repair and, hence, is recommended for implementation

The INCH-Trial: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of conventional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for incisional hernia repair

Background: Annually approximately 100.000 patients undergo a laparotomy in the Netherlands. About 15,000 of these patients will develop an incisional hernia. Both open and laparoscopic surgical repair have been proven to be safe. However, the most effective treatment of incisional hernias remains unclear. This study, the 'INCH-trial', comparing cost-effectiveness of open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, is therefore needed. Methods/Design: A randomized multi-center clinical trial comparing cost-effectiveness of open and laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias. Patients with a symptomatic incisional hernia, eligible for laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair. Only surgeons, experienced in both open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, will participate in the INCH trial. During incisional hernia repair, a mesh is placed under or on top of the fascia, with a minimal overlap of 5 cm. Primary endpoint is Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic incisional hernia repair comes with a significant shorter hospital stay compared to open incisional hernia repair. A difference of two days is considered significant. One-hunderd-and-thirty-five patients are enrolled in each treatment arm. The economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective. Primary outcomes are costs per patient related to time-to-recovery and quality of life. The main goal of the trial is to establish whether laparoscopic i Discussion: The difference in time to full recovery between the two treatment strategies is thought to be in favor of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is therefore expected to be a more cost-effective approach

The INCH-Trial: a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy of conventional open surgery and laparoscopic surgery for incisional hernia repair

Background: Annually approximately 100.000 patients undergo a laparotomy in the Netherlands. About 15,000 of these patients will develop an incisional hernia. Both open and laparoscopic surgical repair have been proven to be safe. However, the most effective treatment of incisional hernias remains unclear. This study, the 'INCH-trial', comparing cost-effectiveness of open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, is therefore needed. Methods/Design: A randomized multi-center clinical trial comparing cost-effectiveness of open and laparoscopic repair of incisional hernias. Patients with a symptomatic incisional hernia, eligible for laparoscopic and open incisional hernia repair. Only surgeons, experienced in both open and laparoscopic incisional hernia repair, will participate in the INCH trial. During incisional hernia repair, a mesh is placed under or on top of the fascia, with a minimal overlap of 5 cm. Primary endpoint is Our hypothesis is that laparoscopic incisional hernia repair comes with a significant shorter hospital stay compared to open incisional hernia repair. A difference of two days is considered significant. One-hunderd-and-thirty-five patients are enrolled in each treatment arm. The economic evaluation will be performed from a societal perspective. Primary outcomes are costs per patient related to time-to-recovery and quality of life. The main goal of the trial is to establish whether laparoscopic i Discussion: The difference in time to full recovery between the two treatment strategies is thought to be in favor of laparoscopic incisional hernia repair. Laparoscopic incisional hernia repair is therefore expected to be a more cost-effective approach