Sildenafil versus continuous positive airway pressure for erectile dysfunction in men with obstructive sleep apnea： a comparat-ive study of their efficacy and safety and the patient＇s satisfaction with treatment

Aim： To assess the efficacy of sildenafil and continuous positive airway pressure （CPAP） in the treatment of concurrent erectile dysfunction （ED） with obstructive sleep apnea （OSA）, and to gauge the level of treatment satisfaction in patients and their partners. Methods： Forty men were treated for 12 weeks with sildenafil 100 mg （20 men） or CPAP during nighttime sleep （20 men）. Treatment efficacy was assessed by the rate of successful intercourse attempts, and satisfaction with treatment was assessed by patients＇ and partners＇ answers to question 1 of the Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction. Results： Under sildenafil, 128 of 249 （51.4%） intercourse attempts were successful; under CPAP, 51 of 193 （26.9%） attempts were successful （^cp 〈 0.001）. Erectile function was improved in both groups. After sildenafil and CPAP treatment, the mean International Index for Erectile Function domain scores were 14.3 and 10.8, respectively （^bp = 0.025）, compared to 7.8 and 7 at baseline, respectively. CPAP and sildenafil were well tolerated. Sporadic episodes of nasal dryness under CPAP and transient headache and flushing under sildenafil were not significant. Fifty percent of patients treated with sildenafil and 25% with CPAP were satisfied with the treatment, and their partners were equally satisfied. The satisfaction scores for both patients and partners under sildenafil were superior to those under CPAP （^cP 〈 0.002）. Conclusion： Both sildenafil 100 mg and CPAP, used separately, had positive therapeutic impact but sildenafil was superior. Patients and their partners were more satisfied with sildenafil for the treatment of ED. However, because of the high proportion of dissatisfied men and partners, new therapeutic agents or a combination of the two methods must be studied further.     

No difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis for elderly patients with cervical hip fracture.A prospective randomized study on 334 patients over 75 years

Introduction

Laboratory and human mechanical studies indicated that chemical substances in bone cement had toxic and prothrombotic effects. Impaction of cement added a mechanical trauma to the reaming and broaching procedure and contributed to a substantial local and systemic thrombin generation. Case reports and materials have indicated bone cement as the immediate trigger of cardiorespiratory and vascular dysfunction, occasionally fatal, and described as the bone cement implantation syndrome. In spite of this knowledge, bone cement has gained popularity and is widely used for prosthesis fixation, possibly due to a lack of clinical evidence supporting the basic science indicating bone cement as a mortality risk factor.

Method

This is a prospective, randomized study comparing cemented and non cemented hemiprosthesis on patients suffering a dislocated cervical hip fracture. Perioperative characteristics and 1 year mortality differences between the groups were estimated.

Patients

Hundred and thirty-four patients over 75 years were enrolled from two hospitals in Norway. Average age was 84 years, 75 % were female and 60 % had symptomatic comorbidities.

Results

We find no difference in mortality between cemented and uncemented hemiprosthesis up to 1 year (HR 0.77, 95 % CI 0.51–1.18, p = 0.233). However, statistically significant reduced operation time and blood loss were found in the non-cemented group. (mean difference of 13 min, 95 % CI 4–22, p = 0.004 and 92 ml 95 % CI 3–181, p = 0.043, respectively).

Conclusion

Installation of non-cemented hemiprostheses in elderly with hip fracture may have benefits perioperatively regarding operation time and bleeding, and do not seem to influence 1 year mortality relative to cemented implants.