ABSTRACT
@#BACKGROUND: Cosyntropin has been reported to be effective in the treatment of post-dural puncture headaches, but there is a lack of data on its effectiveness. We compared the efficacy of cosyntropin with that of caffeine in the treatment of post-dural puncture headaches. METHODS: We performed an interim analysis of a prospective, double blinded, trial of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with a post-dural puncture headache. Patients were randomized to receive either intravenous caffeine or intravenous cosyntropin. Values on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) were recorded at 0, 60, and 120 minutes to assess pain. Rescue therapy was documented on the study data forms. Its effectiveness was determined by the need for this therapy. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were included and four patients were excluded from the analysis because of protocol violations or incomplete data. Analysis was based on intention-to-treat. Caffeine was 80％ (95％ CI 60–100％) effective and cosyntropin was 56％ (95％ CI 33–79％) effective in treating post-dural puncture headaches. The group's VAS scores at 0, 60, and 120 minutes were 80 mm, 41 mm, 31 mm for caffeine and 80 mm, 40 mm, 33 mm for cosyntropin, respectively (P=0.66). CONCLUSION: Caffeine was not more effective than cosyntropin in treating patients with post-dural puncture headaches, and there was no difference in the degree of pain relief on VAS assessment.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Radical nephrectomy can be performed using open or laparoscopic (with or without hand assistance) methods, and most recently using the da Vinci Surgical Robotic System. We evaluated the perioperative outcomes using a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing radical nephrectomy by one of the above 4 methods performed by the same surgeon. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The relevant clinical information on 57 consecutive patients undergoing radical nephrectomy from September 2000 until July 2004 by a single surgeon was entered in a Microsoft Access DatabaseTM and queried. Following appropriate statistical analysis, p values < 0.05 were considered significant. RESULTS: Of 57 patients, the open, robotic, laparoscopy with or without hand assistance radical nephrectomy were performed in 18, 6, 21, and 12 patients, respectively. The age, sex, body mass index (BMI), incidence of malignancy, specimen and tumor size, tumor stage, Fuhrman grade, hospital stay, change in postoperative creatinine, drop in hemoglobin, and perioperative complications were not significantly different between the methods. While the estimated median blood loss, postoperative narcotic use for pain control, and hospital stay were significantly higher in the open surgery method (p < 0.05), the median operative time was significantly shorter compared to the robotic method (p = 0.02). Operating room costs were significantly higher in the robotic and laparoscopic groups; however, there was no significant difference in total hospital costs between the 4 groups. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that radical nephrectomy can be safely performed either by open, robotic, or laparoscopic with or without hand assistance methods without significant difference in perioperative complication rates. A larger cohort and longer follow up are needed to validate our findings and establish oncological outcomes.