Panorametry: suggestion of a method for mandibular measurements on panoramic radiographs

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Orthopantomography (panoramic radiography) has been used for the study of measurements involving particularly the prediction of the eruption of impacted lower third molars and analyses of measurements of the ramus and head of mandible. The discrepancies involved with the projection of this radiographic image has stimulated the search for further ways to use it, particularly in orthodontic treatments and oral and maxillofacial surgeries. The author proposes a graphimetric method for the mandible, based on panoramic radiography. The results are expressed in linear and angular measurements, aiming at bilateral comparisons as well as the determination of the proportion of skeletal and dental structures, individually and among themselves as a whole. The method has been named Panorametry, and allows measurement of the mandible (Mandibular Panorametry) or the posterior mandibular teeth (Dental Panorametry). When combining mandible and maxilla, it should be referred to as Total Panorametry. It may also be used, in the future, with Cone Beam computed tomography (CT) images, and in this case it may be mentioned as CT Panorametry.</p

Late outcomes comparison of nonelderly patients with stented bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in the aortic position: A propensity-matched analysis

ObjectiveOur study compares late mortality and valve-related morbidities between nonelderly patients (aged <65 years) undergoing stented bioprosthetic or mechanical valve replacement in the aortic position.MethodsWe identified 1701 consecutive patients aged <65 years who underwent aortic valve replacement between 1992 and 2011. A stented bioprosthetic valve was used in 769 patients (45%) and a mechanical valve was used in 932 patients (55%). A stepwise logistic regression propensity score identified a subset of 361 evenly matched patient-pairs. Late outcomes of death, reoperation, major bleeding, and stroke were assessed.ResultsFollow-up was 99% complete. The mean age in the matched cohort was 53.9 years (bioprosthetic valve) and 53.2 years (mechanical valve) (P = .30). Fifteen additional measurable variables were statistically similar for the matched cohort. Thirty-day mortality was 1.9% (bioprosthetic valve) and 1.4% (mechanical valve) (P = .77). Survival at 5, 10, 15, and 18 years was 89%, 78%, 65%, and 60% for patients with bioprosthetic valves versus 88%, 79%, 75%, and 51% for patients with mechanical valves (P = .75). At 18 years, freedom from reoperation was 95% for patients with mechanical valves and 55% for patients with bioprosthetic valves (P = .002), whereas freedom from a major bleeding event favored patients with bioprosthetic valves (98%) versus mechanical valves (78%; P = .002). There was no difference in stroke between the 2 matched groups.ConclusionsIn patients aged <65 years, despite an increase in the rate of reoperation with stented bioprosthetic valves and an increase in major bleeding events with mechanical valves, there is no significant difference in mortality at late follow-up

Time interval between self-expandable metal stent placement or creation of a decompressing stoma and elective resection of left-sided obstructive colon cancer

Background The optimal timing of resection after decompression of left-sided obstructive colon cancer is unknown. Revised expert-based guideline recommendations have shifted from an interval of 5-10 days to approximately 2 weeks following self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement, and recommendations after decompressing stoma are lacking. We aimed to evaluate the recommended bridging intervals after SEMS and explore the timing of resection after decompressing stoma.Methods This nationwide study included patients registered between 2009 and 2016 in the prospective, mandatory Dutch ColoRectal Audit. Additional data were collected through patient records in 75 hospitals. Only patients who underwent either SEMS placement or decompressing stoma as a bridge to surgery were selected. Technical SEMS failure and unsuccessful decompression within 48 hours were exclusion criteria.Results 510 patients were included (182 SEMS, 328 decompressing stoma). Median bridging interval was 23 days (interquartile range [IQR] 13-31) for SEMS and 36 days (IQR 22-65) for decompressing stoma. Following SEMS placement, no significant differences in post-resection complications, hospital stay, or laparoscopic resections were observed with resection after 11-17 days compared with 5-10 days. Of SEMS-related complications, 48% occurred in patients operated on beyond 17 days. Compared with resection within 14 days, an interval of 14-28 days following decompressing stoma resulted in significantly more laparoscopic resections, more primary anastomoses, and shorter hospital stays. No impact of bridging interval on mortality, disease-free survival, or overall survival was demonstrated.Conclusions Based on an overview of the data with balancing of surgical outcomes and timing of adverse events, a bridging interval of approximately 2 weeks seems appropriate after SEMS placement, while waiting 2-4 weeks after decompressing stoma further optimizes surgical conditions for laparoscopic resection with restoration of bowel continuity.Cellular mechanisms in basic and clinical gastroenterology and hepatolog

A multi-centred randomised trial of radical surgery versus adjuvant chemoradiotherapy after local excision for early rectal cancer

Background: Rectal cancer surgery is accompanied with high morbidity and poor long term functional outcome. Screening programs have shown a shift towards more early staged cancers. Patients with early rectal cancer can potentially benefit significantly from rectal preserving therapy. For the earliest stage cancers, local excision is sufficient when the risk of lymph node disease and subsequent recurrence is below 5 %. However, the majority of early cancers are associated with an intermediate risk of lymph node involvement (5-20 %) suggesting that local excision alone is not sufficient, while completion radical surgery, which is currently standard of care, could be a substantial overtreatment for this group of patients. Methods/Study design: In this multicentre randomised trial, patients with an intermediate risk T1-2 rectal cancer, that has been locally excised using an endoluminal technique, will be randomized between adjuvant chemo-radiotherapylimited to the mesorectum and standard completion total mesorectal excision (TME). To strictly monitor the risk of locoregional recurrence in the experimental arm and enable early salvage surgery, there will be additional follow up with frequent MRI and endoscopy. The primary outcome of the study is three-year local recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes are morbidity, disease free and overall survival, stoma rate, functional outcomes, health related quality of life and costs. The design is a non inferiority study with a total sample size of 302 patients. Discussion: The results of the TESAR trial will potentially demonstrate that adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is an oncological safe treatment option in patients who are confronted with the difficult clinical dilemma of a radically removed intermediate risk early rectal cancer by polypectomy or transanal surgery that is conventionally treated with subsequent radical surgery. Preserving the rectum using adjuvant radiotherapy is expected to significantly improve morbidity, function and quality of life if compared to completion TME surgery. Trial registration:NCT02371304, registration date: February 2015