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










Publication year range
1.
Rev. argent. radiol ; 88(1): 11-22, mar. 2024. tab, graf
Article in Spanish | LILACS-Express | LILACS | ID: biblio-1550716

ABSTRACT

Resumen La mamografía contrastada (CEDM, contrast-enhanced digital mammography) es una herramienta nueva que ha ido implementándose de forma creciente. Aparece como alternativa a la resonancia magnética (RM), y al igual que esta, tiene como principio el uso de contraste endovenoso para explorar la angiogénesis tumoral. Combina la imagen de mamografía convencional (Mx) con la técnica de sustracción con energía dual poscontraste, lo que resulta en un incremento en la detección de cáncer de mama, en un tiempo corto de estudio y a un bajo costo. Es un método prometedor en casos seleccionados y de fácil lectura, siendo útil principalmente en pacientes con diagnóstico de cáncer de mama para detectar lesiones adicionales y determinar el tamaño tumoral, ayudando en la planificación quirúrgica, así como también en la evaluación de la respuesta a la neoadyuvancia. También en el seguimiento de pacientes operadas, para caracterizar lesiones dudosas en Mx y ecografía, o como alternativa ante contraindicación de la RM. El objetivo de este trabajo es valorar la utilidad de la mamografía contrastada en la práctica diaria y determinar sus principales indicaciones. Repasamos con casos propios las utilidades y características del método.


Abstract Contrast-enhanced digital mammography (CEDM) is an emerging tool that has been increasingly implemented. It appears as an alternative to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), using intravenous contrast to explore tumor angiogenesis. It combines conventional mammography (Mx) with post-contrast dual energy subtraction technique, resulting in increased detection of breast cancer, in a short study time and at a low cost. It is a promising method in selected cases and easy to read, being useful mainly in patients with breast cancer to detect additional lesions and determine the tumor size, that helps surgical planning, as well as in the evaluation of post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in the follow-up of patients treated with surgery, to address inconclusive findings in screening mammogram, or as an alternative when MRI is contraindicated. The purpose of this article is to assess the usefulness of contrasted mammography in daily practice and to determine its main indications. We review with our own cases the applications and characteristics of this method.

2.
J Cataract Refract Surg ; 48(7): 753-758, 2022 07 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34759176

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To establish whether difluprednate 0.05% nanoemulsion (DIFL) twice a day is as effective as prednisolone acetate 1% + phenylephrine hydrochloride 0.12% suspension (PRED) 4 times a day for postsurgical inflammation treatment. SETTING: 4 private Argentine ophthalmological centers. DESIGN: Noninferiority, prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, comparative trial. METHODS: A total of 259 patients who underwent phacoemulsification randomly received DIFL or PRED, starting the day before surgery and continuing for 28 days. The primary endpoint was central corneal thickness. Noninferior anti-inflammatory efficacy was considered if the difference of corneal thickness between baseline and day 4 did not differ beyond 17 µm between treatments. Secondary endpoints were cell and flare, corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), endothelial cell count, optical coherence tomography (OCT) central macular thickness, and intraocular pressure. All outcomes were evaluated at baseline and day 1, 4, and 28 postoperatively. RESULTS: 225 patients finished the study. The difference in corneal thickness at baseline and day 4 did not differ beyond 17 µm between treatments (95% CI -2.78 µm to 14.84 µm), with no statistically significant difference ( P = .523). No statistically significant differences were found between groups in total anterior chamber clearance at any study timepoint ( P > .05). Moreover, no statistically significant differences were reported between treatments in CDVA ( P = .455), endothelial cell count ( P = .811), OCT central macular thickness ( P = .869), and intraocular pressure outcome ( P = .316). CONCLUSIONS: Difluprednate administered twice a day was at least as effective as prednisolone acetate administered 4 times a day for inflammatory treatment after cataract surgery.


Subject(s)
Cataract , Eye Diseases , Phacoemulsification , Fluprednisolone/analogs & derivatives , Humans , Inflammation , Postoperative Complications , Prednisolone/analogs & derivatives , Prednisolone/therapeutic use , Prospective Studies
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...