Search

BACKGROUND: The implementation of the multidisciplinary team conference has been shown to improve treatment outcome for patients with gastric- and gastroesophageal cancer. Likewise, the staging laparoscopy has increased the detection of patients with disseminated disease, that is, patients who do not benefit from a surgical resection. The aim of this study was to compare the multidisciplinary team conference's decision in respect of M-staging with the findings of the following staging laparoscopy.METHODS: Patients considered operable and resectable within the multidisciplinary team conference in the period 2010-2012 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient data were retrieved by searching for specific diagnosis and operation codes in the in-house system. The inclusion criteria were as follows: biopsy-verified cancer of the esophagus, gastroesophageal junction or stomach, and no suspicion of peritoneal carcinomatosis or liver metastases on multidisciplinary team conference before staging laparoscopy. Furthermore, an evaluation with staging laparoscopy was required.RESULTS: In total, 222 patients met the inclusion criteria. Most cancers were located in the gastroesophageal junction, n = 171 (77.0%), and most common with adenocarcinoma histology, n = 196 (88.3%). The staging laparoscopy was M1-positive for peritoneal carcinomatosis in eight patients (16.7%) with gastric cancer versus nine patients (5.3%) with gastroesophageal junction cancer. Furthermore, liver metastases were evident in zero patients (0.0%) and four patients (2.3%) with gastric- and gastroesophageal junction cancer, respectively. The staging laparoscopy findings regarding peritoneal carcinomatosis were significantly different between gastric- and gastroesophageal junction cancers, p = 0.01. No significant differences were found regarding T-/N-stage or histological tumor characteristics between the positive- and negative-staging laparoscopy group.CONCLUSION: The M-staging of the m

Objective: Methodological constraints weaken previous evidence on intra-articular viscosupplementation and physiological saline distention for osteoarthritis. We conducted a randomized, patient- and observer-blind trial to evaluate these interventions in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis. Methods: We centrally randomized 251 patients with knee ostcoarthritis to four weekly intra-articular injections of sodium hyaluronate 2 mL (Hyalgan(R) 10.3 mg/mL) versus physiological saline 20 mL (distention) versus physiological saline 2 mL (placebo) and followed patients for 26 weeks. Inclusion criteria were age over 59 years and daily knee pain more than 20 mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) without satisfactory response to analgesics. During the trial, rescue analgesic were allowed. The primary outcome was pain on movement. The secondary outcomes were pain at rest, pain during the night, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) criteria, and global assessment of the patient's condition. Results: The mean age of the patients was 69.4 years; 55% were women. The effects of hyaluronate 2 mL, physiological saline 20 mL, and physiological saline 2 mL did not differ significantly in reducing knee pain, knee function, or consumption of analgesics. Using OARSI criteria, no significant differences were found. The VAS and KOOS outcomes all improved significantly over time (p<0.0005), regardless of intervention group. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Intra-articular hyaluronate or distention with physiological saline did not significantly reduce pain compared with physiological saline placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee Udgivelsesdato: 2008/3

Objective: Methodological constraints weaken previous evidence on intra-articular viscosupplementation and physiological saline distention for osteoarthritis. We conducted a randomized, patient- and observer-blind trial to evaluate these interventions in patients with painful knee osteoarthritis. Methods: We centrally randomized 251 patients with knee ostcoarthritis to four weekly intra-articular injections of sodium hyaluronate 2 mL (Hyalgan(R) 10.3 mg/mL) versus physiological saline 20 mL (distention) versus physiological saline 2 mL (placebo) and followed patients for 26 weeks. Inclusion criteria were age over 59 years and daily knee pain more than 20 mm on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) without satisfactory response to analgesics. During the trial, rescue analgesic were allowed. The primary outcome was pain on movement. The secondary outcomes were pain at rest, pain during the night, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) criteria, and global assessment of the patient's condition. Results: The mean age of the patients was 69.4 years; 55% were women. The effects of hyaluronate 2 mL, physiological saline 20 mL, and physiological saline 2 mL did not differ significantly in reducing knee pain, knee function, or consumption of analgesics. Using OARSI criteria, no significant differences were found. The VAS and KOOS outcomes all improved significantly over time (p<0.0005), regardless of intervention group. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Intra-articular hyaluronate or distention with physiological saline did not significantly reduce pain compared with physiological saline placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee Udgivelsesdato: 2008/3

Udgivelsesdato: 2005-Jul, OBJECTIVE: The investigation aimed at determining the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee by conducting a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. DESIGN: The trial consisted of 2h daily treatment 5 days per week for 6 weeks in 83 patients with knee OA. Patient evaluations were done at baseline and after 2 and 6 weeks of treatment. A follow-up evaluation was done 6 weeks after treatment. Activities of daily living (ADL), pain and stiffness were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) questionnaire. RESULTS: Within group analysis revealed a significant improvement in ADL, stiffness and pain in the PEMF-treated group at all evaluations. In the control group there was no effect on ADL after 2 weeks and a weak significance was seen after 6 and 12 weeks. Significant effects were seen on pain at all evaluations and on stiffness after 6 and 12 weeks. Between group analysis did not reveal significant improvements over time. Analysis of ADL score for the PEMF-treated group revealed a significant correlation between less improvement and increasing age. Analysis of patients <65 years using between group analysis revealed a significant improvement for stiffness on treated knee after 2 weeks, but this effect was not observed for ADL and pain. CONCLUSIONS: Applying between group analysis we were unable to demonstrate a beneficial symptomatic effect of PEMF in the treatment of knee OA in all patients. However, in patients <65 years of age there is significant and beneficial effect of treatment related to stiffness.

Udgivelsesdato: 2005-Jul, OBJECTIVE: The investigation aimed at determining the effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) in the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee by conducting a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. DESIGN: The trial consisted of 2h daily treatment 5 days per week for 6 weeks in 83 patients with knee OA. Patient evaluations were done at baseline and after 2 and 6 weeks of treatment. A follow-up evaluation was done 6 weeks after treatment. Activities of daily living (ADL), pain and stiffness were evaluated using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) questionnaire. RESULTS: Within group analysis revealed a significant improvement in ADL, stiffness and pain in the PEMF-treated group at all evaluations. In the control group there was no effect on ADL after 2 weeks and a weak significance was seen after 6 and 12 weeks. Significant effects were seen on pain at all evaluations and on stiffness after 6 and 12 weeks. Between group analysis did not reveal significant improvements over time. Analysis of ADL score for the PEMF-treated group revealed a significant correlation between less improvement and increasing age. Analysis of patients <65 years using between group analysis revealed a significant improvement for stiffness on treated knee after 2 weeks, but this effect was not observed for ADL and pain. CONCLUSIONS: Applying between group analysis we were unable to demonstrate a beneficial symptomatic effect of PEMF in the treatment of knee OA in all patients. However, in patients <65 years of age there is significant and beneficial effect of treatment related to stiffness.