微创和传统开放后路腰椎椎间融合术治疗腰椎退行性疾病的远期预后

目的探讨微创后路腰椎椎间融合术(MIS-PLIF)和传统开放PLIF对腰椎退行性疾病(LDD)远期疗效及安全性的影响。方法 2011年1月-2014年12月收治LDD患者182例,其中96例采用传统开放PLIF治疗(PLIF组),86例采用MIS-PLIF治疗(MIS-PLIF组)。比较2组腰椎矢状位参数、多裂肌横截面积及萎缩率、融合率、疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分、日本骨科学会(JOA)评分、Oswestry功能障碍指数(ODI)及术后并发症发生情况,分析多裂肌萎缩率与顽固性腰背痛的相关性。结果 2组术后各随访时间点椎间隙高度恢复值和节段性前凸角恢复值差异均无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组术后1年腰椎前凸角恢复值差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);但术后5年和末次随访时,MIS-PLIF组腰椎前凸角恢复值显著高于PLIF组,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。MIS-PLIF组术后各随访时间点多裂肌横截面积大于PLIF组,多裂肌萎缩率低于PLIF组,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。2组术后随访6个月融合率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。2组术后各随访时间点下肢痛VAS评分差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05);MIS-PLIF组术后各随访时间点腰痛VAS评分、JOA评分及ODI均优于PLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。MIS-PLIF组顽固性腰背痛发生率显著低于PLIF组,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。合并顽固性腰背痛患者多裂肌萎缩率高于未合并顽固性腰背痛的患者,差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论术后多裂肌萎缩可能是导致顽固性腰背痛的重要原因,相较于传统开放PLIF,MIS-PLIF治疗LDD能够更有效地保持腰椎生理曲度,改善肢体活动功能,降低多裂肌萎缩程度,有助于避免顽固性腰背痛的发生。     

钨针电刀在耳内镜鼓膜修补手术中的应用

目的探讨钨针电刀在耳内镜鼓膜修补手术中的应用。方法选取2018年8月-2019年8月住院行耳内镜鼓膜修补的患者85例。其中采用外耳道皮瓣刀行外耳道内切口的40例为对照组,采用钨针电刀行外耳道内切口的45例为观察组,对比分析两组患者手术中和手术后效果。结果观察组比较对照组切口时间短、切口出血量少、术中镜头擦拭次数少、术中止血海绵粒使用量小,两组差别具有统计学意义(t=-13.6、-9.0、-7.6、-12.8、P<0.05);两组患者在术后愈合时间,外耳道狭窄程度方面差别不大,无统计学意义。观察组缺点是电刀使用过程中会产生烟雾,需要助手辅助吸引烟雾。结论钨针电刀小巧灵活,精细准确,具有减少切口出血,缩短手术时间的优点,适合在耳内镜外耳道手术中推广应用。     

The mid-mesial canal prevalence in mandibular molars of a Saudi population: A cone-beam computed tomography study

IntroductionThe aim was to assess the prevalence of Mid Mesial Canal (MMC) in the first and second mandibular molars in a Saudi subpopulation sample and assess its relation to side, gender, and age using Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).MethodsThe CBCT scans at King Saud University Dental Hospital between 2016 and 2019 were reviewed and filtered. The MMC of the mandibular molars were assessed according to Pomeranz et al. classification which was: (1) independent; (2) fin; (3) confluent with the mesiobuccal canal; and (4) confluent with the mesiolingual canal. Three calibrated observers examined the MMC on all planes at both sides. Age and gender factors were used to analyze that prevalence. A chi-squared test was used and (P ≤ 0.05) was considered to be statistically significant.Results395 patients, and 1377 teeth met the inclusion criteria. The total number of mid-mesial canals was 12 (0.9%): nine at the mandibular first molar (1.3%) and three in the mandibular second molar (0.4%). The most common type of mid-mesial canal was confluent (n = 10), of which 6 fused with the mesiobuccal canal and 4 fused with the mesiolingual canal. Two canals were of the fin type, and there was no instance of independent mid-mesial canal. There was no significant difference between all variables: tooth type, tooth side, patient gender, and patient age group (p > 0.05).ConclusionIn this study, the most common MMC configuration was the confluent type followed by the fin type and no independent type were found. The patient side, gender and age did not influence the prevalence of the MMC.     

Ketorolac plus Lidocaine vs Lidocaine for pain relief following core needle soft tissue biopsy: A CONSORT-compliant double-blind randomized controlled study

Backgrounds:The main objective of this study was to compare the pain control efficacy of local administration of Lidocaine with or without the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, Ketorolac, and local conventional Lidocaine injection in core needle biopsy of the musculoskeletal tumor.Methods:The current study was a randomized, double-blind controlled clinical trial that included 128 patients with suspected musculoskeletal tumors. Patients were randomly assigned to either the Ketorolac plus Lidocaine (n = 64) or Lidocaine group (n = 64). The Ketorolac – Lidocaine combination syringe contained 30 mg Ketorolac and 2% Lidocaine – adrenaline dosage, and the Lidocaine syringe contained 2% Lidocaine – adrenaline dosage. The level of pain after core needle biopsy was evaluated for each patient at 1, 6, 12, 24, 48, and >48 hours by a Visual Analog Scale (VAS). The mean VAS changes over time were compared between the Ketorolac plus Lidocaine and Lidocaine groups using a linear mixed model.Results:baseline information including mean age of patients in Lidocaine group (51.5 ± 19.4 years) and in Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination group (50.1 ± 18 years), diagnosis (malignant, benign, metastatic, infection), tumor location (upper and lower extremities, back), VAS score 1-hour post-operation (mild and moderate pain) were noted. The VAS score ratings were significantly lower in Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination group when compared to the Lidocaine group during the 1 to 24 hours post-operation time period.Conclusion:Patients receiving Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination dosage had significantly lower VAS scores, and these results confirm that local injection of Lidocaine – Ketorolac combination had a superior pain-controlling effect during the first 24 hours after the biopsy procedure in comparison to Lidocaine injection alone, as measured by VAS score scale.     

脊髓损伤患者及其配偶二元应对体验的质性研究

目的 探讨脊髓损伤患者及其配偶二元应对体验,为开展针对性的干预对策提供参考依据。 方法 采用目的抽样法,选取2020年4月—2021年3月入住安徽省某三级甲等综合医院脊柱外科的脊髓损伤患者12例及其配偶12名进行半结构化访谈,采用Colaizzi 7步分析法进行资料归纳并提炼主题。 结果 基于二元应对系统交互模型归纳出积极应对（共同面对、一致的疾病信念、转变沟通态度）、消极应对（适应困难、过度的保护行为、回避或冲突）、困难与挑战（亲密感丧失、寻求外部支持、构建新常态）共3个主题和9个亚主题。结论 脊髓损伤患者及其配偶积极应对与消极应对并存。医护人员需重视对患者及其配偶积极二元应对的引导,重点开展以夫妻为中心的应对干预,使其能更好地面对疾病,改善临床结局。     

Real-Time Guided Endodontics with a Miniaturized Dynamic Navigation System Versus Conventional Freehand Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation: Substance Loss and Procedure Time

IntroductionThis study aimed to evaluate substance loss and the time required for access cavity preparation (ACP) using the conventional freehand method (CONV) versus a miniaturized dynamic navigation system of real-time guided endodontics (RTGE) in an in vitro model using 3-dimensional–printed teeth.MethodsNine human anterior maxillary teeth were selected and micro–computed tomographic scanned. Root canals were virtually reduced to 2 mm below the cementoenamel junction. The teeth were digitally duplicated and mirrored to yield 6 different models with 6 single-rooted teeth each. The models were 3-dimensionally printed using radiopaque resin and consecutively mounted on a dental mannequin for ACP. Two operators with 12 and 2 years of clinical experience, respectively, received 6 models (36 teeth) each and performed ACP on half of the models using RTGE (after digital planning) and CONV on the other half 2 weeks later. The time was recorded. Postoperative substance loss was measured by cone-beam computed tomographic imaging. The differences in time and substance loss between the methods and operators were evaluated by the t test.ResultsOverall, substance loss was significantly lower with RTGE than CONV (mean = 10.5 mm³ vs 29.7 mm³), but both procedures took a similar time per tooth (mean = 195 vs 193 seconds). Operator 1 (more experienced) achieved significantly less substance loss than operator 2 with CONV (mean = 19.9 vs 39.4 mm³) but not with RTGE (mean = 10.3 vs 10.6 mm³).ConclusionsRTGE is a practicable, substance-sparing method performed in comparable time as CONV. Moreover, RTGE seems to be independent of operator experience.