Collection of Wound Exudate From Human Digit Tip Amputations Does Not Impair Regenerative Healing: A Randomized Trial

The regrowth of amputated digit tips represents a unique regenerative healing in mammals with subcutaneous volume regrowth, restoration of dactylogram, and suppression of scar formation. Although factor analysis in amphibians and even in mice is easy to obtain, safety of harvesting biomaterial from human digit tip amputations for analysis has not yet been described.The aim of this study was to evaluate if recovering wound exudate does hamper clinical outcome or influence microbiologic or inflammation status.A predefined cohort of 18 patients with fresh digit tip amputations was randomly assigned to receive standard therapy (debridement, occlusive dressing) with (n = 9) or without (n = 9) collection of the whole wound exudate in every dressing change. Primary endpoint (lengthening) and secondary endpoints (regeneration of dactylogram, nail bed and bone healing, time to complete wound closure, scar formation, 2-point discrimination, microbiologic analysis, inflammatory factors interleukin (IL)-1α, tumor necrosis factor-α, IL-4, and IL-6) were determined by an independent, blinded observer.Patients’ characteristics showed no significant differences between the groups. All patients completed the study to the end of 3 months follow-up. Exudate collection did not influence primary and secondary endpoints. Furthermore, positive microbiologic findings as well as pus- and necrosis-like appearance neither impaired tissue restoration nor influenced inflammatory factor release.Here, the authors developed an easy and safe protocol for harvesting wound exudate from human digit tip amputations. For the first time, it was shown that harvesting does not impair regenerative healing. Using this method, further studies can be conducted to analyze regeneration associated factors in the human digit tip.DRKS.de Identifier: DRKS00006882 (UTN: U1111-1166-5723).     

Prevalence and Predictors of Quality of Recovery at Home After Day Surgery

Traditionally, major complications and unanticipated admission/readmission rates were used to assess outcome after day surgery. However, in view of the relative absence of major complications the quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after day surgery. In our study, the level of QOR is defined by a combination of the Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) Index and the Quality of Life (QOL).The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and predictors of QOR after day surgery on the fourth postoperative day.Elective patients scheduled for day surgery from November 2008 to April 2010 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaire packages at 2 time points: 1 week preoperatively and 4 days postoperatively. Primary outcome parameter is the QOR and is defined as good if the GSR index >80% as well as the postoperative QOL is unchanged or improved as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as poor if both the GSR index ≤80% and if the postoperative QOL is decreased as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as intermediate in all other cases. Three logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for poor QOR after day surgery.A total of 1118 patients were included. A good QOR was noted in 17.3% of patients, an intermediate QOR in 34.8%, and a poor QOR in 47.8% 4 days after day surgery. The best predictor for poor QOR after day surgery was type of surgery. Other predictors were younger age, work status, and longer duration of surgery. A history of previous surgery, expected pain (by the patient) and high long-term surgical fear were significant predictors of poor QOR in only 1 of 3 prediction models.The QOR at home 4 days after day surgery was poor in the majority of patients and showed a significant procedure-specific variation. Patients at risk for poor QOR can be identified during the preoperative period based on type of surgery, age, work status, and the duration of the surgery.     

Current therapeutical strategies for allergic rhinitis

Introduction: Allergic rhinitis is a common condition with increasing prevalence and is associated with several comorbid disorders such as bronchial asthma and atopic dermatitis. If allergen avoidance is not possible, allergen-specific immunotherapy is the only causal treatment option.

Areas covered: This review focuses on current treatments and the future outlook for allergic rhinitis. Pharmacotherapy includes mast cell stabilizers, antihistamines, glucocorticosteroids (GCSs), leukotriene receptor antagonists, and nasal decongestants. Nasal GCSs are currently regarded as the most effective treatment and are considered first-line therapy together with non-sedating antihistamines. The new formulation MP29-02 combines the nasal GCS fluticasone propionate with azelastine in one single spray and has achieved greater improvements than those under monotherapy with modern GCSs or antihistamines. Furthermore, this review discusses allergen immunotherapy alone and in combination with modern monoclonal antibodies.

Expert opinion: Despite the variety of medications for allergic rhinitis, ranging from general symptomatic agents like GCSs or decongestants, to more specific ones like histamine receptor or leukotriene blockers, to causal therapy like immunotherapy, many patients still experience treatment failures or unsatisfactory results. The ultimate goal may be to endotype every downstream pathway separately in order to offer patients individualized, targeted therapy with specific antibodies against the respective pathway.     

Association Between Patient and Physician Sex and Physician-Estimated Stroke and Bleeding Risks in Atrial Fibrillation

Background

Physicians treating nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) assess stroke and bleeding risks when deciding on anticoagulation. The agreement between empirical and physician-estimated risks is unclear. Furthermore, the association between patient and physician sex and anticoagulation decision-making is uncertain.

Fibrous dysplasia of the jaws: Integrating molecular pathogenesis with clinical,radiological, and histopathological features

Fibrous dysplasia is a non‐neoplastic developmental process that affects the craniofacial bones, characterized by painless enlargement as a result of bone substitution by abnormal fibrous tissue. Postzygotic somatic activating mutations in the GNAS1 gene cause fibrous dysplasia and have been extensively investigated, as well as being helpful in the differential diagnosis of the disease. Fibrous dysplasia may involve one (monostotic) or multiple bones (polyostotic), sporadically or in association with McCune‐Albright syndrome, Jeffe‐Lichenstein syndrome, or Mazabreud syndrome. This review summarizes the current knowledge on fibrous dysplasia, emphasizing the value of integrating the understanding of its molecular pathogenesis with the clinical, radiological, and histopathological features. In addition, we address important aspects related to the differential diagnosis and patient management.