Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMJ Open ; 9(2): e024091, 2019 02 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30772851

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall hernias are a common source of morbidity and mortality. The use of biological mesh has become an important adjunct in successful abdominal wall reconstruction. There are a variety of biological mesh products available; however, there is limited evidence supporting the use of one type over another. This study aims to compare the performance (eg, the rate of hernia recurrence) of either a crosslinked biological mesh product or a non-crosslinked product in patients undergoing abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre, dual arm randomised controlled trial. Patients requiring abdominal wall reconstruction will be assessed for eligibility. Eligible patients will then undergo an informed consent process following by randomisation to either (1) crosslinked porcine dermis mesh (Permacol); or (2) non-crosslinked porcine dermis mesh (Strattice). These groups will be compared for the rate of hernia recurrence at 1 and 2 years as well as the rate of postoperative complications (eg, surgical site infections). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the institution's research ethics board and registered with clinicaltrials.gov. All eligible participants will provide informed consent prior to randomization. The results of this study may help guide the choice of biologic mesh for this population. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals as well as national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02703662.


Subject(s)
Abdominal Wall/surgery , Plastic Surgery Procedures/instrumentation , Surgical Mesh , Adult , Biocompatible Materials/therapeutic use , Clinical Protocols , Female , Hernia, Abdominal/surgery , Herniorrhaphy/methods , Humans , Male , Plastic Surgery Procedures/adverse effects , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods
2.
BMJ Open ; 8(3): e020378, 2018 03 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29502092

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Haemothorax following blunt thoracic trauma is a common source of morbidity and mortality. The optimal management of moderate to large haemothoraces has yet to be defined. Observational data have suggested that expectant management may be an appropriate strategy in stable patients. This study aims to compare the outcomes of patients with haemothoraces following blunt thoracic trauma treated with either chest drainage or expectant management. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a single-centre, dual-arm randomised controlled trial. Patients presenting with a moderate to large sized haemothorax following blunt thoracic trauma will be assessed for eligibility. Eligible patients will then undergo an informed consent process followed by randomisation to either (1) chest drainage (tube thoracostomy) or (2) expectant management. These groups will be compared for the rate of additional thoracic interventions, major thoracic complications, length of stay and mortality. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the institution's research ethics board and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. All eligible participants will provide informed consent prior to randomisation. The results of this study may provide guidance in an area where there remains significant variation between clinicians. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03050502.


Subject(s)
Drainage/methods , Hemothorax/mortality , Hemothorax/therapy , Thoracic Injuries/complications , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/complications , Alberta , Chest Tubes , Humans , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Multivariate Analysis , Research Design , Thoracostomy , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL