Cutaneous Leishmaniasis in Algeria; Highlight on the Focus of M'Sila.

Algeria ranks second after Afghanistan for the incidence of cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) worldwide. Here, we report a 34-years retrospective analysis of CL in Algeria and focused on the most affected region, the M'Sila province. All 66 cutaneous isolates corresponded to Leishmania (L.) major. Our study of the sandfly and rodent fauna further highlighted the high density of Phlebotomus papatasi and additional phlebotomine species of medical importance, not previously identified in M'Sila. Wild rodents belonging to nine species were trapped in M'Sila, and Psammomys obesus and Meriones shawi were found infected by L. major. In addition, Leishmania infantum was isolated from two visceral leishmaniasis cases, one dog and its proven vectors (P. perniciosus, P. longicuspis, and P. perfiliewi) inventoried during the survey. The high incidence of CL in the M'Sila province is likely a consequence of the increase in minimum temperatures recorded that constitutes suitable conditions for establishing a high endemicity and leads to an explosive rise in leishmaniases cases in this region. A thorough investigation of the underlying risk factors is urgently needed to detect new cases earlier. All these would improve the preparedness to fight the disease.

[A social program for the control of zoonotic cutaneous leishmaniasis in M'Sila, Algeria]. / Un programme social pour la lutte physique contre la leishmaniose cutanée zoonotique dans la wilaya de M'Sila en Algérie.

Zoonotic cutaneous leishmaniasis due to Leishmania major is a serious public health problem in Algeria. On average, 10,000 new cases are reported every year among the 15 million people at risk of infection. With an annual incidence of 561.8 per 100,000 inhabitants, M'Sila has seen the worst outbreak of the disease in Algeria since the historic outbreak in Biskra. The main reservoir of the disease is Psammomys obesus, a gerbil that feeds exclusively on Chenopodiaceae, a salt-tolerant plant under which it makes its burrow. Removing these plants around houses within a radius of 300 meters is one of the most effective control measures. As part of a social program of public works, a pilot project aimed at controlling the disease was undertaken in 2003 in the five worst affected cities in M'Sila. 396 unemployed young people were recruited to remove the plants before the transmission season. Over 3,600 hectares were treated. The number of cases decreased from 1,391 in 2003 to 965 in 2004 (31% reduction). These measures need to be implemented in all endemic areas of the country to better assess their effectiveness in preventing the disease.

Antiinflammatory effect of peripheral nerve blocks after knee surgery: clinical and biologic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Nerve blocks provide analgesia after surgery. The authors tested whether nerve blocks have antiinflammatory effects. METHODS: Patients had combined sciatic (single-shot) and continuous femoral block (48 h) (block group) or morphine patient-controlled analgesia after total knee arthroplasty. Pain at rest and upon movement was monitored at 1 (D1), 4 (D4), and 7 days (D7) and 1 (M1) and 3 months (M3) after surgery. Knee inflammation was evaluated (skin temperature, knee circumference) before surgery and at D1, D4, D7, M1, and M3. Plasma cytokine concentrations (interleukin [IL]-6, IL-1beta, tumor necrosis factor [TNF], IL-10, soluble receptor 1 of TNF [sTNF-R1]) were measured before surgery and at 4 h, D1, D4, and D7 after surgery. Capsule and synovial membrane cytokines were measured (IL-6, TNF, IL-1, IL-10). Knee flexion was evaluated before surgery and at D1, D4, D7, M1, and M3. Morphine use and recovery time to autonomy were monitored. RESULTS: Pain at rest and upon movement was lower in the block group than in patient-controlled analgesia patients between D1 and D7 (analysis of variance, P < 0.005). Knee flexion was improved in the block group for D1 to M1 (analysis of variance, P < 0.0001). Block group patients recovered nonassisted mobilization (t test, P = 0.04) and toilet use (t test, P = 0.03) more rapidly. Knee circumference and skin temperature were lower in the block group between D1 and D7 (analysis of variance, P < 0.05). Synovial membrane IL-1 (P < 0.05) and IL-10 (P < 0.01) increased, and plasma IL-6 and sTNF-R1 peaked at 24 h, with no difference between groups. CONCLUSION: Nerve blocks inhibited clinical inflammation after total knee arthroplasty, with no change in tissue and plasma cytokine concentrations.

Lack of impact of intravenous lidocaine on analgesia, functional recovery, and nociceptive pain threshold after total hip arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The analgesic effect of perioperative low doses of intravenous lidocaine has been demonstrated after abdominal surgery. This study aimed to evaluate whether a continuous intravenous low-dose lidocaine infusion reduced postoperative pain and modified nociceptive pain threshold after total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Sixty patients participated in this randomized double-blinded study. Patients received lidocaine 1% (lidocaine group) with a 1.5 mg/kg intravenous bolus in 10 min followed by a 1.5 mg . kg . h intravenous infusion or saline (control group). These regimens were started 30 min before surgical incision and stopped 1h after skin closure. Lidocaine blood concentrations were measured at the end of administration. In both groups, postoperative analgesia was provided exclusively by patient-controlled intravenous morphine. Pain scores, morphine consumption, and operative hip flexion were recorded over 48 h. In addition, pressure pain thresholds and the extent of hyperalgesia around surgical incision were systematically measured at 24 and 48 h. RESULTS: In comparison with the placebo, lidocaine did not induce any opioid-sparing effect during the first 24 h (median [25-75% interquartile range]; 17 mg [9-28] vs. 15 mg [8-23]; P = 0.54). There was no significant difference regarding the effects of lidocaine and placebo on pain score, pressure pain thresholds, extent in the area of hyperalgesia, and maximal degree of active hip flexion tolerated. Mean plasma lidocaine concentration was 2.1 +/- 0.4 mug/ml. CONCLUSION: Low dose perioperative intravenous lidocaine after total hip arthroplasty offers no beneficial effect on postoperative analgesia and does not modify pressure and tactile pain thresholds.

The influence of timing of administration on the analgesic efficacy of parecoxib in orthopedic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Parecoxib, a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor, may reduce postoperative pain without increasing bleeding when administered before surgery. METHODS: We randomly assigned 62 patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty to the following IV dosing schedule: 1) placebo at induction, at wound closure, and 12 h after induction (control); 2) parecoxib 40 mg at induction, placebo at wound closure, and parecoxib 40 mg 12 h after induction (pre); or, 3) placebo at induction, parecoxib 40 mg at wound closure, and parecoxib 40 mg 12 h after induction (post). Pain scores at rest and with movement were recorded every 4 h for 24 h using a visual analog scale. Treatment side effects were recorded every 4 h. Red cell loss for 5 days after surgery was calculated. RESULTS: Postoperative pain scores were less in the pre and post groups than in the control group. Postoperative bleeding was similar in the three groups. There were no significant differences between the pre and post groups, nor was their any trend suggesting a preemptive analgesic efficacy from preincision administration of parecoxib. Morphine use in the Postanesthesia Care Unit was reduced in the pre and post groups compared with the control group (14.2 +/- 2.0, and 15.7 +/- 2.0, vs 20.4 +/- 2.3 mg), although the trend was only significant (P < 0.05) in the pre group. The first pain score was also reduced in the pre and post groups compared to the control group (56.1 +/- 7.5 and 64.2 +/- 7.0 vs 78.3 +/- 5), but this was also only significant for the pre group (P = 0.001). The delay for first analgesic demand was increased for both the pre and post group compared to the control group (38 +/- 9 and 28.2 +/- 6.6 vs 18 +/- 6 min) but, again, this was only significant for the pre group (P = 0.05). Twenty-four hour consumption of morphine was similar in the pre (26 +/- 12 mg) and post groups (25 +/- 13 mg); both were significantly less than in the control group (47 +/- 27 mg, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of parecoxib before hip arthroplasty did not provide preemptive analgesia. There was a trend towards improved analgesia immediately after surgery with preincision administration, consistent with the expected time course of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drug's effect. Perioperative parecoxib administration, consisting of two injections spaced 12 h apart, improved postoperative analgesia over the first 24 h without increasing bleeding.