Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Cephalalgia ; 42(7): 560-569, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35001643

ABSTRACT

AIM: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention. METHODS: After completing a 4-week diary run-in period, adults who had migraine with or without aura were randomly assigned to receive active non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation or sham therapy during a 12-week double-blind period. RESULTS: Of 336 enrolled participants, 113 (active, n = 56; sham, n = 57) completed ≥70 days of the double-blind period and were ≥66% adherent with treatment, comprising the prespecified modified intention-to-treat population. The COVID-19 pandemic led to early trial termination, and the population was ∼60% smaller than the statistical target for full power. Mean reduction in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was 3.12 for the active group and 2.29 days for the sham group (difference, -0.83; p = 0.2329). Responder rate (i.e. the percentage of participants with a ≥50% reduction in migraine days) was greater in the active group (44.87%) than the sham group (26.81%; p = 0.0481). Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that participants with aura responded preferentially. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention, particularly for patients who have migraine with aura, and reinforce the well-established safety and tolerability profile of this therapy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03716505).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Epilepsy , Migraine Disorders , Vagus Nerve Stimulation , Adult , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Migraine Disorders/drug therapy , Migraine Disorders/prevention & control , Pandemics , Treatment Outcome , Vagus Nerve Stimulation/adverse effects , Vagus Nerve Stimulation/methods
2.
Aesthet Surg J ; 37(3): 290-296, 2017 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28207033

ABSTRACT

Background: Clinical trials have demonstrated through core and independent studies that anatomical devices are safe and effective with low complication rates. The rotation rate of shaped breast implants in the literature is 0 to 8.2%. Currently there are no studies evaluating the efficacy of in office ultrasound or clinical rotation vs actual rotation rates seen on high-resolution ultrasound (HRUS). Objectives: The purpose of the study is to demonstrate the ease and reliability of HRUS for evaluating the rotation rate of 2 different brands of anatomic implants and to correlate this with the presumed clinical rate, as well as independent evaluators assessments. Methods: A total of 69 patients were followed up at routine intervals and were evaluated for rotation. Any implant rotated past >30° off of midline (outside 5-7 o'clock) was considered to be rotated. To determine if radiographic rotation was clinically evident, 20 composite patient photos were blindly evaluated. Results: A random total of 69 patients underwent bilateral augmentation mammoplasty with form stable anatimic gel implants using 138 implants. Twenty-nine of the 69 (42%) patients and 37 of the 138 (27%) implants were found to be rotated-using HRUS. Eight of the 69 (12%) patients had bilateral rotations. Independent evaluators were able to identify two of 12 (17%) possible rotations, or 2 rotations in 40 (5%) total implants. Conclusions: Anatomic form stable gel implants are actually rotated up to 25 times more frequently than previously thought, but these rotations do not translate into clinically significant sequela. High-resolution ultrasound is a simple alternative for breast implant surveillance and is better accepted by patients than magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The clinical value of HRUS is also discussed and recommendations for FDA implant labeling changes are provided in this article. Level of Evidence: 4


Subject(s)
Breast Implantation/instrumentation , Breast Implants , Breast/diagnostic imaging , Breast/surgery , Postoperative Complications/diagnostic imaging , Silicone Gels , Ultrasonography, Mammary/methods , Adult , Breast Implantation/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted , Imaging, Three-Dimensional , Middle Aged , Photography , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Prosthesis Design , Rotation , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
3.
Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open ; 4(11): e1118, 2016 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27975023

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Human acellular dermal matrix (HADM) is commonly used to provide coverage and support for breast reconstruction. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the complication rates associated with breast reconstruction procedures when performed in conjunction with multiple types of HADM in a consecutive series. METHODS: After receiving institutional review board approval, medical records from a single surgeon were retrospectively reviewed for 126 consecutive patients (170 breasts and 211 procedures) who received a breast reconstruction or revision with implantation of HADM between 2012 and 2014. Patient demographics, surgical technique, and the complication profile of 4 major types of HADM were evaluated by procedure. Complication data were primarily evaluated for infection, seroma formation, necrosis, and other complications requiring additional surgery. RESULTS: The total complication rate was 19.4%. The complication rates were not statistically different between all 4 types of HADM: Alloderm (n = 143); Alloderm RTU (n = 19); FlexHD (n = 18); hMatrix (n = 32) (P > 0.05). Smokers and large-breasted women (≥500 g) had a significantly higher complication rate than the rest of the population (P < 0.01 and P < 0.03, respectively). The complication rates associated with all other patient cohorts analyzed (age, body mass index, comorbid conditions, cancer diagnosis, prepectoral technique) showed no influence on complication rates (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In characteristically similar cohorts, there was no statistically significant difference in complication rates based on type of HADM; however, certain risk factors and anatomy should be considered before HADM-assisted breast reconstruction.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...