Minimally disruptive decompression and transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion.

BACKGROUND: Posterior spinal procedures through tubular exposures have been described. However, tubes restrain visibility and require co-axial instrument manipulation, increasing difficulty and potentially compromising surgical results. An independent-blade retractor system overcomes the obstacles of working through a tube and has been used to perform minimally-disruptive decompression and instrumented tranforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF). PURPOSE: To evaluate the advantages to patient recovery and surgical efficacy of this technique. METHODS/RESULTS: Retrospective review of technique employing a minimally-disruptive approach to decompression and transforaminal lumber interbody fusion (TLIF). CONCLUSIONS: Minimally-disruptive decompression and instrumented TLIF can be performed in a safe and effective manner using an independent-blade retractor system. Relative to traditional-open techniques, surgical goals can be accomplished, but with the benefits of minimally-disruptive surgery.     

A prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing two hyperbaric treatment protocols for carbon monoxide poisoning.

INTRODUCTION: The optimal hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) treatment protocol for acute carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning is unknown. This is indicated by one study that found 18 different protocols to treat CO poisoning by North American multiplace hyperbaric facilities. A pilot study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility of randomizing patients to different protocols and to determine whether any large differences in clinical outcome were present between the two most common protocols. METHODS: Adult patients with accidental CO poisoning resulting in transient loss of consciousness, presentation to the emergency department within 12 hours, primary language English, high school education, and residence within 100 miles of the hyperbaric facility were recruited. Enrolled patients were randomized to one HBO2 treatment at 2.4 atmospheres absolute (atm abs) pressure with 90 minutes of 100% oxygen breathing vs. treatment by the US Air Force CO protocol (3.0 atm abs maximum pressure). A neurocognitive screening test was performed immediately after hyperbaric treatment and repeated 14-21 days later. RESULTS: From 1995 to 2002, 30 patients age 21 to 88 years were randomized, 18 to treatment at 2.4 atm abs and 12 to 3.0 atm abs. Average carboxyhemoglobin level for the population was 24.8 +/- 8.8% (mean +/- SD). Delay to hyperbaric treatment averaged 313 +/- 129 minutes. Neither variable was different between treatment groups. Six patients had abnormal neurocognitive testing immediately following hyperbaric treatment, 4 in the 2.4 atm abs group (22%) and 2 in the 3.0 atm abs group (17%) (P=0.71). One patient in each group demonstrated abnormality on delayed testing (p=0.75). One in each group did not return for follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to randomize CO-poisoned patients to different hyperbaric treatment protocols. Determination of differences in efficacy between treatment protocols will require a large multicenter trial with the use of detailed neurocognitive testing.     

Synthesis and antitumor activity of pyrano[4′,3′:4,5]pyrido[2,3-b]thieno[3,2-d]-1,2,3-triazine and l,2,3-triazino[4′,5′:4,5¦thieno-[2,3-c]isoquinoline derivatives

Methods for the synthesis of new heterosystems of condensed thieno[3,2-d]-1,2,3-triazines on the basis of pyrido[2,3-b]thiophenes have been developed. The antitumor activity of the synthesized compounds was studied and several compounds possessing low toxicity and moderate antitumor activity were found. __________ Translated from Khimiko-Farmatsevticheskii Zhurnal, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 3–5, June, 2006.     

Vacuum-assisted closure therapy in pyoderma gangrenosum

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC), although a modern adjunct in wound management, has not been used previously in pyoderma gangrenosum (PG), probably to avoid the potential complications of ‘pathergy’. We would like to report our experience of VAC in three cases of PG with the relevant review of literature.     

A survey: conscious sedation with epidural and zygapophyseal injections: is it necessary?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Substantial variation exists regarding the use of sedation before interventional spine techniques. Patient preference should play an important role in decision making regarding the need for sedation. However, little is known about patients' anxiety levels before spinal injections and their perceptions about the necessity of sedation. PURPOSE: To determine patient perception for need for sedation before epidural steroid injections and zygapophyseal joint injections. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Survey of consecutive spinal injection patients in an outpatient spine center. PATIENT SAMPLE: 500 consecutive lumbar, thoracic, and cervical patients receiving spinal injections. OUTCOME MEASURES: A 12-item questionnaire assessing patients' perceived anxiety before to a spinal injection. METHODS: Subjects were given the questionnaire after their spinal injection. Percentages requesting sedation for a first and potential second procedure were assessed. Additionally, anxiety level and pain rating, location of injection, age, sex, and other medication use were analyzed to determine the effect on the request for sedation. RESULTS: 17% of patients questioned requested sedation before an injection, and 28% would request sedation if they were to have a second injection. CONCLUSIONS: Routine sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic injections is not necessary as the majority of patients would not request sedation before the procedure when given the option. However, in some patients sedation is indicated, and all patients would benefit from educational material on sedation before the injection.