Correlated selection responses to upwards and downwards selection for backfat and daily gains in pigs

International audienc

"Maintenance" requirement in lines of pigs selected for backfat thickness in daily gain

<p/

Surgery for extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation: a single center comparative observational study

Background Surgery on extraforaminal lumbar disc herniation (ELDH) is a commonly performed procedure. Operating on this type of herniation is known to come with more difficulties than on the frequently seen paramedian lumbar disc herniation (PLDH). However, no comparative data are available on the effectiveness and safety of this operation. We sought out to compare clinical outcomes at 1 year following surgery for ELDH and PLDH. Methods Data were collected through the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery (NORspine). The primary outcome measure was change at 1 year in the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Secondary outcome measures were quality of life measured with EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D); and numeric rating scales (NRSs). Results Data of a total of 1750 patients were evaluated in this study, including 72 ELDH patients (4.1%). One year after surgery, there were no differences in any of the patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs) between the two groups. PLDH and ELDH patients experienced similar changes in ODI (- 30.92 vs. - 34.00, P = 0.325); EQ-5D (0.50 vs. 0.51, P = 0.859); NRS back (- 3.69 vs. - 3.83, P = 0.745); and NRS leg (- 4.69 vs. - 4.46, P = 0.607) after 1 year. The proportion of patients achieving a clinical success (defined as an ODI score of less than 20 points) at 1 year was similar in both groups (61.5% vs. 52.7%, P = 0.204). Conclusions Patients operated for ELDH reported similar improvement after 1 year compared with patients operated for PLDH.Scientific Assessment and Innovation in Neurosurgical Treatment Strategie

Effects of epidural lidocaine analgesia on labor and delivery: A randomized, prospective, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Whether epidural analgesia for labor prolongs the active-first and second labor stages and increases the risk of vacuum-assisted delivery is a controversial topic. Our study was conducted to answer the question: does lumbar epidural analgesia with lidocaine affect the progress of labor in our obstetric population? METHOD: 395 healthy, nulliparous women, at term, presented in spontaneous labor with a singleton vertex presentation. These patients were randomized to receive analgesia either, epidural with bolus doses of 1% lidocaine or intravenous, with meperidine 25 to 50 mg when their cervix was dilated to 4 centimeters. The duration of the active-first and second stages of labor and the neonatal apgar scores were recorded, in each patient. The total number of vacuum-assisted and cesarean deliveries were also measured. RESULTS: 197 women were randomized to the epidural group. 198 women were randomized to the single-dose intravenous meperidine group. There was no statistical difference in rates of vacuum-assisted delivery rate. Cesarean deliveries, as a consequence of fetal bradycardia or dystocia, did not differ significantly between the groups. Differences in the duration of the active-first and the second stages of labor were not statistically significant. The number of newborns with 1-min and 5-min Apgar scores less than 7, did not differ significantly between both analgesia groups. CONCLUSION: Epidural analgesia with 1% lidocaine does not prolong the active-first and second stages of labor and does not increase vacuum-assisted or cesarean delivery rate