Postoperative rehabilitation of senile fracture of neck of femur

Background:Thesenliewithfracturerestinbedforalongtime,andhaven'tsufficientfunctionexercise,allabovewillleadtoosteoporosis,badrepairofbonetissue,muscleatrophyandjointstiffnessoccurs,whichbringsufferingandenconomicburden.Objective:Tosummarizetheeffectofpostoperativefunctionexercisesonrecoveryoffractureofneckoffemur.Unit:OrthopedicsHospitalofShenyang.Subjects:Therewere86patientsoffractureofneckoffemur,including52males,34famles,aged60-84years,average72years.Accordingtopositionoffractureline:sub…     

Analysis of rehabilitation treatment of slippage of lumbar vertebrae

INTRODUCTIONSlippageoflumbarvertebraeisasecondcommondiseaseafterprotrusionofintervertebraldiscs.Althoughsomepatientswerecuredbyconservativetherapy,surgicaltreatmentisneededinsomecases犤1犦.FromMarch1994toMarch2001,weusedstealplateinternalfixationtotreat18casesofslippageandtheeffectwasobvious.Thefollowingisthereport.MATERIALSANDMETHODSMaterial18patientswereinvolvedincluding10malesand8femalesaged41-64(mean:46)years.Slippagelocus:L4-5,11cases;L5-S1,7cases.Clinicalmanifestation:all…     

Series of spinal balance therapy in treatment of 196 cases of protrusion of intervertebraldisc

Background：Protrusionofintervertebraldiscwasaclinicalsyndromresultedfromintervertevraldiscdegeneration，fibrousringrupture，protrusionofpulpiformnucleusthatstimulateandcom－pressesnerveroot，andcomprehensiveconservativetherapywasoftenadopted．Inthisgroupofdata，１９６casesofprotrusionofinterverte－braldisctreatedbyseriesofspinalbalancetherapywerecollectedfromJanuary２０００toDecember２００１．Objective：Toinvestigateeffectofseriesofspinalbalancetherapyintreatmentofprotrusionofintervertebrald…     

Appliance of Tenor system in treatment of fissural olisthe of isthmus of lumbar vertebra

BACKGROUND: Application of Tenor system and is to decompress nerve root, reduction of olisthe, internal fixation and auto-grafts are to restore anatomic structure and stability of spinal column.OBJECTIVE: To observe therapeutic effects of Tenor system on fissural olisthe of isthmus of lumbar vertebra.UNIT: Department of Orthopaedics, General Hospital of Armed Police     

Experience of prevention and treatment of deep burn of hand

INTRODUCTIONHowtopreventhanddeformitycausedbyburn,restoreappearanceandworkingabilityhasbeenalwaysthemainproblem,thefollow-ingisthereportaboutcausesofdeformityandexperienceofpre-ventionandtreatment.GENERALDATA2037casesofburntreatedfromJanuary1997toOctober2002amongincluding957casesofburnofhandsandtheincidencewas46.9%amongwhichwere229casesofdeepburnand195pa-tientsreceivedearlysurgicaltreatment.6patients(15fingers)un-derwentfingeramputation.38casesneededplasticsbecauseofscardeformityinlat…     

The rehabilitation treatment of senile fracture of neck of femur

BACKGROUND: Despite of treatment of operation or routine conservation, special psychological and physical characteristics, osteoporosis, recession of muscular strength and long braked time on bed often cause retrograde degeneration of muscle and skeleton and the complications of delayed recovery and other diseases. To above problems, a series of continuous ways of functional rehabilitation are applied and satisfactory effects are achieved.     

Dexmedetomidine use in the ICU: Are we there yet?

Expanded abstract

Citation

Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, Bratty JR, Takala J; Dexmedeto midine for Long-Term Sedation Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vesus midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012, 307:1151-1160.

Background

Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.

Methods

Objective

The objective was to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and improving patients'' interaction with nursing care.

Design

Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials were conducted.

Setting

The MIDEX (Midazolam vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in nine European countries. The PRODEX (Propofol vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in six European countries and two centers in Russia.

Subjects

The subjects were adult ICU patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours.

Intervention

After enrollment, 251 and 249 subjects were randomly assigned midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the MIDEX trial, and 247 and 251 subjects were randomly assigned propofol and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the PRODEX trial. Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials were employed.

Outcomes

For each trial, investigators tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were the ability of the patient to communicate pain (measured by using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol (midazolam, n = 233, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 223) population.

Results

Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.18), and dexmedetomidine/propofol ratio in time at target sedation was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours, interquartile range (IQR) 67 to 337) versus midazolam (164 hours, IQR 92 to 380; P = 0.03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours, IQR 45 to 257) versus propofol (118 hours, IQR 48 to 327; P = 0.24). Patient interaction (measured by using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference versus midazolam 19.7, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.2; P <0.001; and versus propofol 11.2, 95% CI 6.4 to 15.9; P <0.001). Lengths of ICU and hospital stays and mortality rates were similar. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] versus 29/250 [11.6%]; P = 0.007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] versus 13/250 [5.2%]; P <0.001).

Conclusions

Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved the ability of patients to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. Greater numbers of adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.     

Etomidate and adrenal insufficiency: the controversy continues

Citation

Jabre P, Combes X, Lapostolle F, et al. Etomidate versus ketamine for rapid sequence intubation in acutely ill patients: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009, 374:293-300. PMID: 19573904

Background

Critically ill patients often require emergency intubation. The use of etomidate as the sedative agent in this context has been challenged because it may cause a reversible adrenal insufficiency, potentially associated with increased in-hospital morbidity. We compared early and 28-day morbidity after a single dose of etomidate or ketamine used for emergency endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients.

Methods

In this randomized, controlled, single-blind trial, 655 patients who needed sedation for emergency intubation were prospectively enrolled from 12 emergency medical services or emergency departments and 65 intensive care units in France. Patients were randomly assigned by a computerized random-number generator list to receive 0-3 mg/kg of etomidate (n = 328) or 2 mg/kg of ketamine (n = 327) for intubation. Only the emergency physician enrolling patients was aware of group assignment. The primary endpoint was the maximum score of the sequential organ failure assessment during the first 3 days in the intensive care unit. We excluded from the analysis patients who died before reaching the hospital or those discharged from the intensive care unit before 3 days (modified intention to treat). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00440102.

Findings

234 patients were analyzed in the etomidate group and 235 in the ketamine group. The mean maximum SOFA score between the two groups did not differ significantly (10.3 [SD 3.7] for etomidate vs. 9.6 [3.9] for ketamine; mean difference 0.7 [95% CI 0.0-1.4], p = 0.056). Intubation conditions did not differ significantly between the two groups (median intubation difficulty score 1 [IQR 0-3] in both groups; p = 0.70). The percentage of patients with adrenal insufficiency was significantly higher in the etomidate group than in the ketamine group (OR 6.7, 3.5-12.7). We recorded no serious adverse events with either study drug.

Interpretation

Our results show that ketamine is a safe and valuable alternative to etomidate for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients, and should be considered in those with sepsis.     

Propofol for sedation can shorten the duration of ED stay in joint reductions

Background

For joint reductions, adequate sedation is often required. Propofol has increasingly been used for sedation in the emergency department (ED) in recent years. The benefits of propofol are the rapid onset of action and the short recovery time. However, whether these characteristics can shorten the duration of ED stay is not been proved.

Objective

Our study retrospectively compared patients receiving propofol for sedation during joint reductions with those who received sedatives other than propofol. The primary objective was to compare the duration of ED stay between the 2 groups. The secondary outcomes were rate of adverse events and the success of the procedure.

Methods

Patients were included if they had a dislocated joint requiring management in the ED. The following covariates were recorded on a standard form for each patient: age, sex, indication for procedural sedation, sedative used, pain medications used, physician levels, duration of ED stay, failed reduction, and adverse events. We further matched each patient in the propofol group to the patient in the nonpropofol group using a standard propensity score greedy-matching algorithm. The primary and secondary outcomes were compared accordingly.

Results

A total of 241 patients met our inclusion criteria and were enrolled for further analysis. In the propensity score assignment, 56 patients (28 in each group) were further selected. The duration of ED stay in the propofol group is significantly shorter compared with the nonpropofol group (127 vs 192 minutes, P = .0019). The successful reduction rate is higher in the propofol group (96.4% vs 64.3%, P = .002). The complication rate is similar in both groups (3.6% vs 0%, P = .313).

Conclusion

Propofol is a safe sedative with few complications and higher successful rates when applied in the joint reductions. It can also shorten the duration of ED stay.     

Randomized clinical trial of propofol versus alfentanil for moderate procedural sedation in the emergency department

Study objective

To compare the frequency of airway and respiratory adverse events leading to an intervention between moderate sedation using alfentanil or propofol.

Propofol versus midazolam for procedural sedation in the emergency department: A study on efficacy and safety

Background

Procedural sedation for painful procedures in the emergency department (ED) can be accomplished with various pharmacological agents. The choice of the sedative used is highly dependent on procedure- and patient characteristics and on personal- or local preferences.

Midazolam and propofol used alone or sequentially for long-term sedation in critically ill,mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective,randomized study

Introduction

Midazolam and propofol used alone for long-term sedation are associated with adverse effects. Sequential use may reduce the adverse effects, and lead to faster recovery, earlier extubation and lower costs. This study evaluates the effects, safety, and cost of midazolam, propofol, and their sequential use for long-term sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods

A total of 135 patients who required mechanical ventilation for >3 days were randomly assigned to receive midazolam (group M), propofol (group P), or sequential use of both (group M-P). In group M-P, midazolam was switched to propofol until the patients passed the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) safety screen. The primary endpoints included recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time. The secondary endpoints were pharmaceutical cost, total cost of ICU stay, and recollection to mechanical ventilation-related events.

Results

The incidence of agitation following cessation of sedation in group M-P was lower than group M (19.4% versus 48.7%, P = 0.01). The mean percentage of adequate sedation and duration of sedation were similar in the three groups. The recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time of group M were 58.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 39.0) hours, 45.0 (IQR, 24.5) hours, and 192.0 (IQR, 124.0) hours, respectively; these were significantly longer than the other groups, while they were similar between the other two groups. In the treatment-received analysis, ICU duration was longer in group M than group M-P (P = 0.016). Using an intention-to-treat analysis and a treatment-received analysis, respectively, the pharmaceutical cost of group M-P was lower than group P (P <0.01) and its ICU cost was lower than group M (P <0.01; P = 0.015). The proportion of group M-P with unbearable memory of the uncomfortable events was lower than in group M (11.7% versus 25.0%, P <0.01), while the proportion with no memory was similar (P >0.05). The incidence of hypotension in group M-P was lower than group (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Sequential use of midazolam and propofol was a safe and effective sedation protocol, with higher clinical effectiveness and better cost-benefit ratio than midazolam or propofol used alone, for long-term sedation of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01173443. Registered 25 February 2014.     

Propofol–fentanyl versus propofol–ketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in patients with trauma

Objective

Many procedures performed in emergency department are stressful and painful, and creating proper and timely analgesia and early and effective assessment are the challenges in this department. This study has been conducted in order to compare the efficacy of propofol and fentanyl combination with propofol and ketamine combination for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in trauma patients in the emergency department.

Hemodynamic consequences of ketamine vs etomidate for endotracheal intubation in the air medical setting

Objective

Recent drug shortages have required the occasional replacement of etomidate for endotracheal intubation (ETI) by helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS), with ketamine. The purpose of this study was to assess whether there was an association between ketamine vs etomidate use as the main ETI drug, with hemodynamic or clinical (airway) end points.

Methods

This retrospective study used data entered into medical records at the time of HEMS transport. Subjects, 50 ketamine and 50 etomidate, were accrued from 3 US HEMS programs. The study period was from August 2011 through May 2012. Data collection included demographics, diagnostic category, ETI drugs use, ETI success, and complications. Hemodynamic parameters were assessed for up to 2 sets of vital signs before airway management and up to 5 sets of post-ETI vital signs. Significance was defined at the P < .05 level.

Results

Patients on ketamine and etomidate were similar (P > .05) with respect to age, sex, scene/interfacility mission type, trauma vs nontrauma, neuromuscular blocking agent use, and rates of coadministration of fentanyl or midazolam. All patients had successful airway placement. Peri-ETI hypoxemia was seen in 10% of etomidate and 16% of ketamine cases (P = .55). The pre-ETI and post-ETI were similar between the ketamine and etomidate groups with respect to systolic blood pressure and heart rate at every vital signs assessment after ETI.

Conclusion

Initial assessment of ETI success and complication rates, as well as peri-ETI hemodynamic changes, suggests no concerning complications associated with large-scale replacement of etomidate with ketamine as the major airway management drug for HEMS.     

Changing sedative infusion from propofol to midazolam improves sublingual microcirculatory perfusion in patients with septic shock

Purpose

The goal of this study was to explore possible microcirculatory alterations by changing sedative infusion from propofol to midazolam in patients with septic shock.

Materials and Methods

Patients (n = 16) were sedated with propofol during the first 24 hours after intubation, then with midazolam, following a predefined algorithm. Systemic hemodynamics, perfusion parameters, and microcirculation were assessed at 2 time points: just before stopping propofol and 30 minutes after the start of midazolam infusion. Sublingual microcirculation was evaluated by sidestream dark-field imaging.

Results

The microvascular flow index and the proportion of perfused small vessels were greater when patients were on midazolam than when on propofol infusion (2.8 [2.4-2.9] vs 2.3 [1.9-2.6] and 96.4% [93.7%-97.6%] vs 92.7% [88.3%-94.7%], respectively; P < .005), and the flow heterogeneity index was greater with propofol than with midazolam use (0.49 [0.2-0.8] vs 0.19 [0.1-0.4], P < .05). There were no significant changes in systemic hemodynamics and perfusion parameters either during propofol use or during midazolam infusions. Data are presented as median (25th-75th percentiles).

Conclusions

In this study, sublingual microcirculatory perfusion improved when the infusion was changed from propofol to midazolam in patients with septic shock. This observation could not be explained by changes in systemic hemodynamics.