Effects of co-administered dexamethasone and diclofenac potassium on pain, swelling and trismus following third molar surgery

BACKGROUND: The apparent interactions between the mechanisms of action of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) and steroids suggest that co-therapy may provide beneficial inflammatory and pain relief in the absence of side effects. The aim of the study was to compare the effect of co-administered dexamethasone and diclofenac potassium (diclofenac K) with diclofenac K alone on the postoperative pain, swelling and trismus after surgical removal of third molars. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective randomized double-blind study was conducted at the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria. A total of 100 patients were randomly allocated to two treatment groups of dexamethasone (prophylactic 8 mg and postoperative 4 mg IV) and diclofenac K (50 mg Oral before and after surgery), and diclofenac K alone (as with first group). The overall analgesic efficacy of the drug combinations was assessed postoperatively by determination of pain intensity using a category rating scale. Facial swelling was measured using a tape measure placed from tragus to gonion to tragus, while interincisal mouth-opening of patients was measured using a vernier calibrated caliper pre-operatively and post-operatively. RESULTS: Co-administration of dexamethasone and diclofenac K was significantly superior to diclofenac alone for the relief of pain (P < 0.05), and facial swelling up to post-operative 48 hour (P < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference for trismus relief between the two medication protocols (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study illustrates enhanced effects of co-administered dexamethasone and diclofenac K on short-term post-operative pain and swelling, compared to diclofenac potassium alone in third molar surgery

Executive Pay and the Search for Legitimacy: An Investigation into how UK Remuneration Committees Use Corporate performance comparisons in Long Term Incentive Pay (LTIP) Decisions

This article draws on case studies from five of the UK privatized water plcs in order to examine how Remuneration Committees operationalized and justified their executive long-term incentive pay (LTIP) schemes. The article uses these as `revelatory' examples to illuminate how problematic decisions about executive pay can be. The water plc Remuneration Committees, concerned about potential stakeholder criticism, devoted considerable time and resources to ensure that their choice of LTIP comparators and performance metrics would be regarded as legitimate. The difficulties they encountered in pursuing this illustrate the underlying indeterminacy and incoherence of normative guidelines for implementing good governance in these substantive areas of executive remuneration. The article analyses this in terms of institutional incompleteness and argues that the resulting uncertainty creates theoretical as well as practical issues for resolving debates about what constitutes good governance

Focal HIFU therapy for anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions

OBJECTIVE: To compare cancer control in anterior compared to posterior prostate cancer lesions treated with a focal HIFU therapy approach. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a prospectively maintained national database, 598 patients underwent focal HIFU (Sonablate®500) (March/2007-November/2016). Follow-up occurred with 3-monthly clinic visits and PSA testing in the first year with PSA, every 6-12 months with mpMRI with biopsy for MRI-suspicion of recurrence. Treatment failure was any secondary treatment (ADT/chemotherapy, cryotherapy, EBRT, RRP, or re-HIFU), tumour recurrence with Gleason ≥ 3 + 4 on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastases/prostate cancer-related mortality. Cases with anterior cancer were compared to those with posterior disease. RESULTS: 267 patients were analysed following eligibility criteria. 45 had an anterior focal-HIFU and 222 had a posterior focal-HIFU. Median age was 64 years and 66 years, respectively, with similar PSA level of 7.5 ng/ml and 6.92 ng/ml. 84% and 82%, respectively, had Gleason 3 + 4, 16% in both groups had Gleason 4 + 3, 0% and 2% had Gleason 4 + 4. Prostate volume was similar (33 ml vs. 36 ml, p = 0.315); median number of positive cores in biopsies was different in anterior and posterior tumours (7 vs. 5, p = 0.009), while medium cancer core length, and maximal cancer percentage of core were comparable. 17/45 (37.8%) anterior focal-HIFU patients compared to 45/222 (20.3%) posterior focal-HIFU patients required further treatment (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: Treating anterior prostate cancer lesions with focal HIFU may be less effective compared to posterior tumours

Prostate specific antigen criteria to diagnose failure of cancer control following focal therapy of nonmetastatic prostate cancer using high Intensity focused ultrasound

PURPOSE: We determined whether prostate specific antigen criteria after focal high intensity focused ultrasound to treat prostate cancer could diagnose treatment failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 598 patients in a prospectively maintained national database underwent focal high intensity focused ultrasound with a Sonablate® 500 device from March 2007 to November 2016. Followup consisted of 3-month clinic visits and prostate specific antigen testing in year 1 with prostate specific antigen measurement every 6 to 12 months and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with biopsy for magnetic resonance imaging suspicious for recurrence. Treatment failure was considered any secondary treatment, tumor recurrence with Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease on prostate biopsy without further treatment or metastasis and/or prostate cancer related mortality. To diagnose failure we evaluated a series of nadir + x thresholds with x values of 0.1 to 2.0 ng/ml. RESULTS: Median patient age was 65 years (IQR 60-71) and the median Gleason score was 7 (range 6-9). Gleason 3 + 4 or greater disease was present in 80% of cases. Tumors were radiologically staged as T1c-T2c in 522 of the 596 patients (88%) and as and T3a/b in 74 (12.4%). Baseline median prostate specific antigen was 7.80 ng/ml (IQR 5.96-10.45) in failed cases and 6.77 ng/ml (IQR 2.65-9.71) in cases without failure. Optimal performance according to the Youden index to indicate the most appropriate nadir + x at all analyzed time points at 3-month intervals showed that nadir + 1.0 ng/ml would have 27.3% to 100% sensitivity and 39.4% to 85.6% specificity depending on the time of evaluation in the first 3 years. Nadir + 1.5 ng/ml showed 18.2% to 100% sensitivity and 60.6% to 91.8% specificity with nadir + 2.0 ng/ml leading to similar sensitivity and specificity ranges. Nadir + 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and nadir + 1.5 ng/ml at 24 and 36 months had 100% sensitivity and 96.1% to 100% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: Following focal high intensity focused ultrasound a prostate specific antigen nadir of 1.0 ng/ml at 12 months and 1.5 ng/ml at 24 to 36 months might be used to triage men requiring magnetic resonance imaging and biopsy. These data need prospective validation