Arthrocentesis versus non-surgical intervention as initial treatment for temporomandibular joint arthralgia:a randomized controlled trial with long-term follow-up

Arthrocentesis for arthralgia of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is often only indicated when conservative, non-surgical interventions have failed. However, performing arthrocentesis as initial therapy may facilitate earlier and better recuperation of the joint. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of this therapy with a long-term follow-up. Eighty-four patients were randomly allocated to receive either arthrocentesis as initial treatment (n = 41) or non-surgical intervention (n = 43). Pain (100-mm visual analogue scale, VAS) and mandibular function impairment questionnaire scores (MFIQ, 0–100) were recorded at 3, 12, and 26 weeks, and ≥ 5 years (median 6.2, interquartile range 5.6–7.4 years). Univariable analyses were performed and linear mixed-effect models were constructed. Patients in the arthrocentesis group experienced significantly lower TMJ arthralgia compared to those treated non-surgically (pain during movement: −10.23 mm (95% confidence interval −17.86; −2.60); pain at rest: − 8.39 mm (95% confidence interval −13.70; −3.08)), while mandibular function remained similar in the two groups (MFIQ −2.41 (95% confidence interval −8.61; 3.78)). Of the final sample, 10 patients (10/39, 26%) in the non-surgical intervention group and two patients (2/34, 6%) in the arthrocentesis group received additional treatment during follow-up. Thus, initial treatment with arthrocentesis reduced TMJ arthralgia more efficaciously than non-surgical intervention in the long term, while maintaining similar mandibular function

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Arthrocentesis versus non-surgical intervention as initial treatment for temporomandibular joint arthralgia: a randomized controlled trial with long-term follow-up

Arthrocentesis for arthralgia of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) is often only indicated when conservative, non-surgical interventions have failed. However, performing arthrocentesis as initial therapy may facilitate earlier and better recuperation of the joint. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of this therapy with a long-term follow-up. Eighty-four patients were randomly allocated to receive either arthrocentesis as initial treatment (n = 41) or non-surgical intervention (n = 43). Pain (100-mm visual analogue scale, VAS) and mandibular function impairment questionnaire scores (MFIQ, 0–100) were recorded at 3, 12, and 26 weeks, and ≥ 5 years (median 6.2, interquartile range 5.6–7.4 years). Univariable analyses were performed and linear mixed-effect models were constructed. Patients in the arthrocentesis group experienced significantly lower TMJ arthralgia compared to those treated non-surgically (pain during movement: −10.23 mm (95% confidence interval −17.86; −2.60); pain at rest: − 8.39 mm (95% confidence interval −13.70; −3.08)), while mandibular function remained similar in the two groups (MFIQ −2.41 (95% confidence interval −8.61; 3.78)). Of the final sample, 10 patients (10/39, 26%) in the non-surgical intervention group and two patients (2/34, 6%) in the arthrocentesis group received additional treatment during follow-up. Thus, initial treatment with arthrocentesis reduced TMJ arthralgia more efficaciously than non-surgical intervention in the long term, while maintaining similar mandibular function

Microplastic Compendium

The Microplastic Compendium (MPC) serves as digital source of information and platform on different aspects of microplastic pollution. It targets various interest groups, both interested readers without scientific background and people with relevant scientific questions. Most importantly, users can find aggregated information on various aspects of this highly relevant environmental problem. Extensive information was gathered on the scope and consequences of microplastic pollution, as well as possible measures and solutions tackling the issue from a policy- and industry perspective. For early starts in the scientific field, the most relevant reviews are linked. Additionally, recommendations for suitable chemical-analytical workflows are included. The MPC does not claim to be complete. Content selection of reviews and recommendations are based on authors’ point of view on personal expert knowledge. The contents are therefore subjective. They are largely extracted from the theses by Fadi El Gareb, Jeannette Hansen and Lars Hildebrandt. Experts from Hereon, the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) and the University of Plymouth have kindly contributed special articles. Special thanks to Hatef Takyar for the development and maintenance of the portal. The MPC has been developed in the context and is part of the Coastal Pollution Toolbox (URL: www.coastalpollutiontoolbox.org), a knowledge hub and digital working environment and tool set to study contaminant, nutrient and carbon dynamics in temperate and polar coastal zones. URL: www.microplastic-compendium.e

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions

Objective: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. Study design and setting: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. Results: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. Conclusion: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta‐analyses (CDIM) of interventions

Objective: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. Study design and setting: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. Results: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age; sex; patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention; timing; control intervention; cointerventions);and outcome (definition of outcome; timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. Conclusion: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background: Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods: This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was coprioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low-middle-income countries. Results: In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of 'single-use' consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low-middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion: This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high- and low-middle-income countries