Tratamiento del dolor anal por patología anorrectal aguda en urgencias: ¿baños de asiento con agua fría o caliente? resultados de un ensayo clínico aleatorizado

IntroductionThe popular belief advocates the use of sitz (sitting) baths with cold water for the treatment of acute anal pain, but clinical practice guides recommend the use of hot water for its known effect on the at-rest anal pressure.AimThe objective of the study was to examine the analgesic effect on the quality of life, manometer data and clinical progress, of the two temperatures in sitz baths in patients with anal pain.Material and methodsA randomised clinical trial on patients with acute anal pain due to haemorrhoids or anal fissures, divided into Group 1: Sitz baths with water at a temperature of less than 15 °C, and Group 2: Baths with a water temperature above 30 °C. The analgesia was the same in both groups. An analysis was made of the pain at 7 days (visual analogue scale), quality of life (SF-36), anal at-rest pressure and disease progress.ResultsOf the 27 eligible patients, 24 were randomised (Group 1: n=12 y Group 2: n=12). There were no statistical differences in pain, but it remained stable in Group 1, but gradually decreased in the patients of Group 2, the difference being in the pain scores on the first day compared to the seventh in Group 2 (p=0.244). The rest of the variables were similar.ConclusionThere were no statistically significant differences in pain control from day 1 to day 7 in the Group with sitz baths with hot water.(ISRCTN Number: 50105150).     

Proto-oncogene HER-2 in normal,dysplastic and tumorous feline mammary glands: an immunohistochemical and chromogenic in situ hybridization study

Background  

Feline mammary carcinoma has been proposed as a natural model of highly aggressive, hormone-independent human breast cancer. To further explore the utility of the model by adding new similarities between the two diseases, we have analyzed the oncogene HER-2 status at both the protein and the gene levels.     

Pathogenesis of refractory secondary hyperparathyroidism

Calcitriol is currently used to reduce parathyroid hormone (PTH) levels in uremic patients. However, a significant number of patients fail to respond to calcitriol therapy. The data suggest that a poor response to calcitriol can be anticipated in patients with severe hyperparathyroidism (with a high basal PTH levels) and uncontrolled serum phosphate. The abnormal parathyroid response to calcitriol in uremic patients with severe parathyroid hyperplasia may be attributed, to a large extent, to the development of nodular hyperplasia as a result of clonal transformation from a diffuse polyclonal hyperplasia. The factors involved in the development of polyclonal parathyroid hyperplasia, at earlier stages of secondary hyperparathyroidism, appear to be the same factors that stimulate PTH secretion and synthesis: hypocalcemia, hyperphosphatemia and low serum calcitriol levels. Studies performed in vitro using parathyroid tissue from uremic patients who required parathyroidectomy demonstrate that in nodular hyperplasia there is an abnormal response to calcium and calcitriol, which suggests that there are factors intrinsic to the hyperplastic cell (such as decrease in calcium sensor receptors and vitamin D receptors) responsible for an abnormal regulation of parathyroid function. Accumulation of phosphate is a key factor in the pathogenesis of secondary hyperparathyroidism and a poor response to calcitriol treatment is associated with the failure to control the serum phosphorus. High phosphate stimulates PTH secretion as demonstrated by in vivo and in vitro studies. In addition, animal studies strongly suggest that phosphate increases parathyroid cell proliferation. There are growth-related genes potentially involved in uremic hyperparathyroidism; however, changes in the expression of these genes may be the consequence rather than the cause of parathyroid hyperplasia.     

Comparative effects of latanoprost (Xalatan) and unoprostone (Rescula) in patients with open-angle glaucoma and suspected glaucoma

PURPOSE: To compare, in paired eyes of open-angle glaucoma patients and glaucoma suspects, hydrodynamic and visual changes after 1 month of topical latanoprost in one eye and unoprostone in the other.DESIGN: Single-center, institutional randomized clinical trial.METHODS: After completing a washout period off all topical medication, 25 adults (mean age 54 +/- SEM 2 years) with bilateral open-angle glaucoma or glaucoma suspect status underwent morning (8 to 10 AM) and afternoon (1 to 3 PM) measurements of intraocular pressure (IOP), pulsatile ocular blood flow (POBF), contrast, sensitivity, frequency doubling technology, and Humphrey 10-2 perimetry (HVFA II) in both eyes. Each then started unoprostone 0.15% (Rescula) in one randomly assigned eye and latanoprost 0.005% (Xalatan) in the other. Unoprostone was administered at 8 AM and 8 PM and latanoprost at 8 PM with placebo at 8 AM, both from masked bottles. After 28 days, differences were determined for each measured variable by two-tailed paired t test.RESULTS: Starting from similar baseline IOP levels, after 1 month of treatment, the mean morning IOP values differed according to the topical agent received (16.2 +/- SEM 0.6 mm Hg for latanoprost vs 17.9 +/- 0.7 mm Hg for unoprostone; P =.001). These morning pressures were 2.6 mm Hg lower than baseline in the eyes receiving latanoprost (P <.0001), and 1.6 mm Hg lower in unoprostone-treated eyes (P =.02). Afternoon values were 3.1 +/- SEM 0.6 lower than corresponding baseline in eyes receiving latanoprost, and 2.4 +/- SEM 0.6 mm Hg in unoprostone-treated eyes (P <.0001 from baseline for both medications; interdrug mean IOP difference; P =.04). Eyes receiving unoprostone showed a 1.7-db improvement in frequency doubling mean deviation (P =.03), the only significant visual function change observed. Pulsatile ocular blood flow increased 30% relative to baseline in eyes receiving latanoprost, (P <.0001) and 16% in eyes receiving unoprostone (P =.05) by the morning of day 28. That afternoon, mean POBF had increased 30% (P <.0001) relative to afternoon baseline values among eyes receiving latanoprost and 18% (P =.03) among those receiving unoprostone (interdrug change difference, P =.05). Humphrey perimetry and contrast sensitivity remained stable with both prostanoids.CONCLUSIONS: Both latanoprost and unoprostone produced significant reductions in IOP and increases in POBF, with stable central and perimacular visual function. Latanoprost once daily produced IOP reduction and POBF increases nearly twofold greater than those obtained with unoprostone twice daily. These differences in IOP and POBF change between unoprostone and latanoprost were statistically significant.