An Observational 1-Month Trial on the Efficacy and Safety of Promerim for Improving Knee Joint

Objective: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of the oral intake of promerim in the elimination of acute pain and discomfort associated with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: Single-center, 1-month, prospective, observational clinical trial. A total of 92 patients not older than 70 years were included. Patients were offered to use 720-mg promerim for the first 15 days after admission after breakfast and then 360 mg for the second 15 days. All patients were analyzed with the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, which ranges from 0 to 10, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score before the start of treatment and 1 month after the start. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS 15.0 software. An α level of P  < .05 was assumed to be statistically significant. Results: This study comprised 92 patients (69 women and 23 men) with a mean age of 51.5 (range: 40-69) years. Before treatment, the mean VAS score was 5.6 ± 1.1, and after treatment, the mean VAS score was 2.6 ± 1.7. Treatment with promerim consistently showed a significant decrease in the VAS score ( P  < .001). The mean WOMAC score of the patients was 46.4 ± 8.2 before treatment. After treatment, the mean WOMAC score was 72.1 ± 14.4. Treatment with promerim consistently showed a significant increase in the WOMAC score ( P  < .001). Conclusions: The results of this single-center, open-label clinical study demonstrate that promerim is a viable natural treatment option for treating knee OA. We recommend that 720-mg promerim taken once daily for the first 15 days after admission and 360 mg taken once daily for the next 15 days significantly and rapidly reduced composite pain and stiffness in the knee OA within 1 month

Transtibial vs anatomical single bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study

WOS: 000375550000011PubMed: 26987514Introduction: Most of the ACL reconstruction is done with isometric single-bundle technique. Traditionally, surgeons were trained to use the transtibial technique (TT) for drilling the femoral tunnel. Our study compared the early postoperative period functional and clinical outcomes of patients who had ACL reconstruction with TT and patients who had ACL reconstruction with anatomical single-bundle technique (AT). Material method: Fifty-five patients who had ACL reconstruction and adequate follow-up between January 2010-December 2013 were included the study. Patients were grouped by their surgery technique. 28 patients included into anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction surgery group (group 1) and 27 patients were included into transtibial AC reconstruction group (group 2). Average age of patients in group 1 and group 2 was 28.3 +/- 6, and 27.9 +/- 6.4, respectively. Lachman and Pivot-shift tests were performed to patients. Laxity was measured by KT-1000 arthrometer test with 15, 20 and 30 pound power. All patients' muscle strength between both extremities were evaluated with Cybex II (Humac) at 60 degrees/sec, 240 degrees/sec frequencies with flexion and extension peak torque. The maximum force values of non-operated knee and the operated knee were compared to each other. Groups were evaluated by using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee ligament healing Standard form, IKDC activity scale, modified Lysholm and Cincinnati evaluation forms. Return to work and exercise time of patients were compared. Functional and clinical outcomes of two groups were compared. NCSS 2007 and PASS 2008 Statistical Software programs were used for statistical analysis. Result: There was no statistically significant difference between Lachman and Pivot-shift results (p > 0.01). Positive value of Pivot-shift test and incidence of anterior translation in Lachman test were higher in the patients who had TT. Lysholm activity level of patients who had TT, 33.3% (n = 9) were excellent, 51.9% (n = 14) were good and 14.8% (n = 4) were moderate; patients who had AT, 57.1% (n = 16) were excellent, 39.3% (n = 11) were good and 3.6% (n = 1) was good level. There was no statistically significant difference between Lysholm Activity level of the patients (p 0.05). Conclusion: Single-bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction was better than the TT in term of clinical, functional, and laboratory results. We believe that AT ACL reconstruction will increase in use and traditional method which is TT ACL reconstruction surgery will decrease in the long term. Theoretically, anatomic relocation of the ACL can provide better knee kinematics. (C) 2016 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Transtibial vs anatomical single bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Introduction: Most of the ACL reconstruction is done with isometric single-bundle technique. Traditionally, surgeons were trained to use the transtibial technique (TT) for drilling the femoral tunnel. Our study compared the early postoperative period functional and clinical outcomes of patients who had ACL reconstruction with TT and patients who had ACL reconstruction with anatomical single-bundle technique (AT)

Outcomes from elective colorectal cancer surgery during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic

Aim This study aimed to describe the change in surgical practice and the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality after surgical resection of colorectal cancer during the initial phases of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Method This was an international cohort study of patients undergoing elective resection of colon or rectal cancer without preoperative suspicion of SARS-CoV-2. Centres entered data from their first recorded case of COVID-19 until 19 April 2020. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included anastomotic leak, postoperative SARS-CoV-2 and a comparison with prepandemic European Society of Coloproctology cohort data. Results From 2073 patients in 40 countries, 1.3% (27/2073) had a defunctioning stoma and 3.0% (63/2073) had an end stoma instead of an anastomosis only. Thirty-day mortality was 1.8% (38/2073), the incidence of postoperative SARS-CoV-2 was 3.8% (78/2073) and the anastomotic leak rate was 4.9% (86/1738). Mortality was lowest in patients without a leak or SARS-CoV-2 (14/1601, 0.9%) and highest in patients with both a leak and SARS-CoV-2 (5/13, 38.5%). Mortality was independently associated with anastomotic leak (adjusted odds ratio 6.01, 95% confidence interval 2.58–14.06), postoperative SARS-CoV-2 (16.90, 7.86–36.38), male sex (2.46, 1.01–5.93), age >70 years (2.87, 1.32–6.20) and advanced cancer stage (3.43, 1.16–10.21). Compared with prepandemic data, there were fewer anastomotic leaks (4.9% versus 7.7%) and an overall shorter length of stay (6 versus 7 days) but higher mortality (1.7% versus 1.1%). Conclusion Surgeons need to further mitigate against both SARS-CoV-2 and anastomotic leak when offering surgery during current and future COVID-19 waves based on patient, operative and organizational risks