21 research outputs found

    The role of open abdomen in non-trauma patient : WSES Consensus Paper

    Get PDF
    The open abdomen (OA) is defined as intentional decision to leave the fascial edges of the abdomen un-approximated after laparotomy (laparostomy). The abdominal contents are potentially exposed and therefore must be protected with a temporary coverage, which is referred to as temporal abdominal closure (TAC). OA use remains widely debated with many specific details deserving detailed assessment and clarification. To date, in patients with intra-abdominal emergencies, the OA has not been formally endorsed for routine utilization; although, utilization is seemingly increasing. Therefore, the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Abdominal Compartment Society (WSACS) and the Donegal Research Academy united a worldwide group of experts in an international consensus conference to review and thereafter propose the basis for evidence-directed utilization of OA management in non-trauma emergency surgery and critically ill patients. In addition to utilization recommendations, questions with insufficient evidence urgently requiring future study were identified.Peer reviewe

    The open abdomen in trauma and non-trauma patients: WSES guidelines

    Full text link

    European Neuromuscular Centre consensus statement on anaesthesia in patients with neuromuscular disorders

    No full text
    BACKGROUND Patients with neuromuscular conditions are at increased risk of suffering peri-operative complications related to anaesthesia. There is currently little specific anaesthetic guidance concerning these patients. Here we present the European Neuromuscular Centre (ENMC) consensus statement on anaesthesia in patients with neuromuscular disorders as formulated during the 259th ENMC workshop on Anaesthesia in neuromuscular disorders. METHODS International experts in the field of (paediatric) anaesthesia, neurology and genetics were invited to participate in the ENMC workshop. A literature search was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE whose main findings were disseminated to the participants and presented during the workshop. Depending on specific expertise, participants presented the existing evidence and their expert opinion concerning anaesthetic management in six specific groups of myopathies and neuromuscular junction disorders. The consensus statement was prepared according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation (AGREE II) reporting checklist. The level of evidence has been adapted according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) grading system. The final consensus statement was subjected to a modified Delphi process. RESULTS A set of general recommendations valid for the anaesthetic management of patients with neuromuscular disorders in general have been formulated. Specific recommendations were formulated for 1) neuromuscular junction disorders; 2) muscle channelopathies (non-dystrophic myotonia and periodic paralysis); 3) myotonic dystrophy (type 1 and 2); 4) muscular dystrophies; 5) congenital myopathies and congenital dystrophies and 6) mitochondrial and metabolic myopathies. CONCLUSION This ENMC consensus statement summarizes the most important considerations for planning and performing anaesthesia in patients with neuromuscular disorders

    Post hoc analysis of the PATRICIA randomized trial of the efficacy of human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16)/HPV-18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against incident and persistent infection with nonvaccine oncogenic HPV types using an alternative multiplex type-specific PCR assay for HPV DNA

    No full text
    The efficacy of the human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16)/HPV-18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infections with HPV in the Papilloma Trial against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA) was evaluated using a combination of the broad-spectrum L1-based SPF10 PCR-DNA enzyme immunoassay (DEIA)/line probe assay (LiPA25) system with type-specific PCRs for HPV-16 and -18. Broad-spectrum PCR assays may underestimate the presence of HPV genotypes present at relatively low concentrations in multiple infections, due to competition between genotypes. Therefore, samples were retrospectively reanalyzed using a testing algorithm incorporating the SPF10 PCR-DEIA/LiPA25 plus a novel E6-based multiplex type-specific PCR and reverse hybridization assay (MPTS12 RHA), which permits detection of a panel of nine oncogenic HPV genotypes (types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58, and 59). For the vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, there was no major impact on estimates of vaccine efficacy (VE) for incident or 6-month or 12-month persistent infections when the MPTS12 RHA was included in the testing algorithm versus estimates with the protocol-specified algorithm. However, the alternative testing algorithm showed greater sensitivity than the protocol-specified algorithm for detection of some nonvaccine oncogenic HPV types. More cases were gained in the control group than in the vaccine group, leading to higher point estimates of VE for 6-month and 12-month persistent infections for the nonvaccine oncogenic types included in the MPTS12 RHA assay (types 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58, and 59). This post hoc analysis indicates that the per-protocol testing algorithm used in PATRICIA underestimated the VE against some nonvaccine oncogenic HPV types and that the choice of the HPV DNA testing methodology is important for the evaluation of VE in clinical trials. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00122681.)22223524

    Hoja de predicción: Número 58 - 2001 Marzo 22

    Get PDF
    The efficacy of the human papillomavirus type 16 (HPV-16)/HPV-18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infections with HPV in the Papilloma Trial against Cancer in Young Adults (PATRICIA) was evaluated using a combination of the broad-spectrum L1-based SPF10 PCR-DNA enzyme immunoassay (DEIA)/line probe assay (LiPA25) system with type-specific PCRs for HPV-16 and -18. Broad-spectrum PCR assays may underestimate the presence of HPV genotypes present at relatively low concentrations in multiple infections, due to competition between genotypes. Therefore, samples were retrospectively reanalyzed using a testing algorithm incorporating the SPF10 PCR-DEIA/LiPA25 plus a novel E6-based multiplex type-specific PCR and reverse hybridization assay (MPTS12 RHA), which permits detection of a panel of nine oncogenic HPV genotypes (types 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58, and 59). For the vaccine against HPV types 16 and 18, there was no major impact on estimates of vaccine efficacy (VE) for incident or 6-month or 12-month persistent infections when the MPTS12 RHA was included in the testing algorithm versus estimates with the protocol-specified algorithm. However, the alternative testing algorithm showed greater sensitivity than the protocol-specified algorithm for detection of some nonvaccine oncogenic HPV types. More cases were gained in the control group than in the vaccine group, leading to higher point estimates of VE for 6-month and 12-month persistent infections for the nonvaccine oncogenic types included in the MPTS12 RHA assay (types 31, 33, 35, 45, 52, 58, and 59). This post hoc analysis indicates that the per-protocol testing algorithm used in PATRICIA underestimated the VE against some nonvaccine oncogenic HPV types and that the choice of the HPV DNA testing methodology is important for the evaluation of VE in clinical trials. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00122681.)

    Interpol review of questioned documents 2016–2019

    No full text
    corecore