66 research outputs found

    Progressive vertebral deformities despite unchanged bone mineral density in patients with sarcoidosis: a 4-year follow-up study

    Get PDF
    To evaluate the incidence of new and/or progressive vertebral deformities and changes in bone mineral density, we re-examined 66 patients with sarcoidosis after a follow-up period of four years. In 17 subjects (26%) new and/or progressive vertebral deformities were found, though BMD did not change significantly. INTRODUCTION: Previous studies from our group have shown that morphometric vertebral deformities suggestive of fractures can be found in 20% of patients with sarcoidosis, despite a normal bone mineral density (BMD). The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of new and/or progressive vertebral deformities and the evolution of BMD during the course of this disease. METHODS: BMD of the hip (DXA) and vertebral fracture assessment (VFA) with lateral single energy densitometry was performed at baseline and after 45 months in 66 patients with sarcoidosis. Potential predictors of new/ progressive vertebral deformities were assessed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The BMD of the total group was unchanged after follow-up. The prevalence of vertebral deformities increased from 20 to 32% (p < 0.05); in 17 subjects (26%) new or progressive vertebral deformities were diagnosed. A lower T-score of the femoral neck [(OR = 2.5 (CI: 1.0-5.9), p < 0.05)] and mother with a hip fracture [(OR = 14.1 (CI: 1.4-142.6), p < 0.05)] were independent predictors of new/progressive deformities. CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with sarcoidosis the number of vertebral deformities increases in the course of this disease, despite unchanged BMD. The combination of low normal BMD and family history of fragility fractures confers an increased risk of the incidence of these deformities

    Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) : 2017 update of the evidence-based guidelines from the world society of emergency surgery ASBO working group

    Get PDF
    Background: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency, causing high morbidity and even some mortality. The adhesions causing such bowel obstructions are typically the footprints of previous abdominal surgical procedures. The present paper presents a revised version of the Bologna guidelines to evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of ASBO. The working group has added paragraphs on prevention of ASBO and special patient groups. Methods: The guideline was written under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery by the ASBO working group. A systematic literature search was performed prior to the update of the guidelines to identify relevant new papers on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of ASBO. Literature was critically appraised according to an evidence-based guideline development method. Final recommendations were approved by the workgroup, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusion. Recommendations: Adhesion formation might be reduced by minimally invasive surgical techniques and the use of adhesion barriers. Non-operative treatment is effective in most patients with ASBO. Contraindications for non-operative treatment include peritonitis, strangulation, and ischemia. When the adhesive etiology of obstruction is unsure, or when contraindications for non-operative management might be present, CT is the diagnostic technique of choice. The principles of non-operative treatment are nil per os, naso-gastric, or long-tube decompression, and intravenous supplementation with fluids and electrolytes. When operative treatment is required, a laparoscopic approach may be beneficial for selected cases of simple ASBO. Younger patients have a higher lifetime risk for recurrent ASBO and might therefore benefit from application of adhesion barriers as both primary and secondary prevention. Discussion: This guideline presents recommendations that can be used by surgeons who treat patients with ASBO. Scientific evidence for some aspects of ASBO management is scarce, in particular aspects relating to special patient groups. Results of a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for ASBO are awaited.Peer reviewe

    In the eye of the beholder: Eye-tracking assessment of social information processing in aggressive behavior

    Get PDF
    # The Author(s) 2009. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Acording to social information processing theories, aggressive children are hypersensitive to cues of hostility and threat in other people’s behavior. However, even though there is ample evidence that aggressive children over-interpret others ’ behaviors as hostile, it is unclear whether this hostile attribution tendency does actually result from overattending to hostile and threatening cues. Since encoding is posited to consist of rapid automatic processes, it is hard to assess with the selfreport measures that have been used so far. Therefore, we used a novel approach to investigate visual encoding of social information. The eye movements of thirty 10–13 year old children with lower levels and thirty children with higher levels of aggressive behavior were monitored in real time with an eyetracker, as the children viewed ten different cartoon series of ambiguous provocation situations. In addition, participants answered questions concerning encoding and interpretation. Aggressive children did not attend more to hostile cues, nor attend less to non-hostile cues than non-aggressive children. Contrary, aggressive children looked longer at non-hostile cues, but nonetheless attributed more hostile intent than their non-aggressive peers. These findings contradict the traditional bottom-up processing hypotheses that aggressive behavior would be related with failure to attend to non-hostile cues. The findings seem best explained by topdown information processing, where aggressive children’s pre-existing hostile intent schemata (1) direct attention towards schema inconsistent nonhostile cues, (2) prevent further processing and recall of such schema-inconsistent information, and (3) lead to hostil

    Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy alone as neoadjuvant treatment for locally recurrent rectal cancer: study protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-arms, randomized controlled study (PelvEx II)

    Get PDF
    Background A resection with clear margins (R0 resection) is the most important prognostic factor in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). However, this is achieved in only 60 per cent of patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the addition of induction chemotherapy to neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation improves the R0 resection rate in LRRC. Methods This multicentre, international, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study will enrol 364 patients with resectable LRRC after previous partial or total mesorectal resection without synchronous distant metastases or recent chemo- and/or radiotherapy treatment. Patients will be randomized to receive either induction chemotherapy (three 3-week cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine, oxaliplatin), four 2-week cycles of FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) or FOLFORI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan)) followed by neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (experimental arm) or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone (control arm). Tumours will be restaged using MRI and, in the experimental arm, a further cycle of CAPOX or two cycles of FOLFOX/FOLFIRI will be administered before chemoradiotherapy in case of stable or responsive disease. The radiotherapy dose will be 25 × 2.0 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy in radiotherapy-naive patients, and 15 × 2.0 Gy in previously irradiated patients. The concomitant chemotherapy agent will be capecitabine administered twice daily at a dose of 825 mg/m2 on radiotherapy days. The primary endpoint of the study is the R0 resection rate. Secondary endpoints are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, toxicity, postoperative complications, costs, and quality of life. Discussion This trial protocol describes the PelvEx II study. PelvEx II, designed as a multicentre, open-label, phase III, parallel-arms study, is the first randomized study to compare induction chemotherapy followed by neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery with neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation and surgery alone in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer, with the aim of improving the number of R0 resections

    Hospital of diagnosis and probability to receive a curative treatment for oesophageal cancer

    No full text
    Background: Surgical treatment of oesophageal cancer in the Netherland is performed in high volume centres. However, the decision to refer patients for curative surgery is made in the referring hospital of diagnosis. The objective of this study was to determine the influence of hospital of diagnosis on the probability of receiving a curative treatment and survival. Material and method: All patients with resectable oesophageal cancer (cT1-3, cN0-3, cM0-1A) diagnosed between 2003 and 2010 (it = 849) were selected from the population-based Eindhoven Cancer Registry, an area with ten non-academic hospitals. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to examine the independent influence of hospital of diagnosis on the probability to receive curative treatment. Furthermore, the effect of hospital of diagnosis on overall survival was examined using multivariate Cox regression analysis. Results: 849 patients were included in the study. A difference in proportion of patients referred for surgery was observed ranging from 33% to 67% (p =- 0.002) between hospitals of diagnosis. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed the effect of hospital of diagnosis on the chance of undergo curative treatment (OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1-0.4). Multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that hospital of diagnosis also had an effect on overall survival, up to hazard ratio (HR) 2.2 (95% CI 1.3-3.7). Conclusion: There is a strong relation between hospital of diagnosis and the chance of referring patients with oesophageal cancer for a curative treatment as well as overall survival. Patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer should be discussed within a regional multidisciplinary expert panel. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved
    • …
    corecore