A Comparative Study of Endoscopic versus Percutaneous Epidural Neuroplasty in Lower Back Pain: Outcomes at Six-Month Follow Up.

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic epidural neuroplasty (EEN) facilitates adhesiolysis through direct epiduroscopic visualization, offering more precise neural decompression than that exhibited by percutaneous epidural neuroplasty (PEN). We aimed to compare the effects of EEN and PEN for 6 months after treatment with lower back and radicular pain in patients. Methods: This retrospective study compared the visual analog scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) scores in patients with low back and radicular pain who underwent EEN or PEN with a steering catheter. The medical records of 107 patients were analyzed, with 73 and 34 undergoing EEN and PEN, respectively. Results: The VAS and ODI scores decreased at all time points after EEN and PEN. VAS and ODI scores decreased more in the EEN group than those in the PEN group at 1 day and 1- and 6-months post-procedure, indicating superior pain relief for both lower back and radicular pain through EEN. Conclusions: EEN is a superior treatment of pain control than PEN in lower back and radicular pain patients.

Diabetic Neuropathy and Minimum Effective Anesthetic Concentration of Mepivacaine for Axillary Brachial Plexus Block: A Prospective Observational Study.

Nerves in patients with diabetic neuropathy (DN) show increased susceptibility to local anesthetics, potentially requiring a decreased dose. We investigated whether the minimum effective anesthetic concentration (MEAC) of mepivacaine for successful axillary block is lower in patients with DN than in those without. This prospective observational study included patients with DN (n = 22) and without diabetes (n = 22) at a tertiary care center. Patients received an ultrasound-guided axillary block with 30 mL of mepivacaine for anesthesia. The mepivacaine concentration used in each patient was calculated using Dixon's up-and-down method. A block was considered successful if all four sensory nerves had a score of 1 or 2 within 30 min with no pain during surgery. The primary outcome was the MEAC of mepivacaine, and the secondary outcomes included the minimal nerve stimulation intensity for the musculocutaneous nerve and the occurrence of adverse events. The MEAC50 was 0.55% (95% CI 0.33-0.77%) in patients without diabetes and 0.58% (95% CI 0.39-0.77%) in patients with DN (p = 0.837). The MEAC90 was 0.98% (95% CI 0.54-1.42%) in patients without diabetes and 0.96% (95% CI 0.57-1.35%) in patients with DN (p = 0.949). The stimulation threshold for the musculocutaneous nerve was significantly different between groups (0.49 mA vs. 0.19 mA for patients with vs. without diabetes; p = 0.002). In conclusion, the MEAC of mepivacaine for a successful axillary block is not lower in patients with DN.

Improvement of the Marginal Reflex Distance-1 in Blepharoptosis Surgeries.

The aim of this study was to predict the improvement of the marginal reflex distance (MRD1) in each blepharoptosis surgery.In PubMed and Scopus, the search terms 1. (blepharoptosis) AND 2. (surgery) AND 3. (levator OR outcome OR MRD OR function OR ptosis amount) were used and 1268 titles were found. Among them 28 papers were analyzed: Aponeurotic surgery (A-group, 8), Muller muscle resection (M-group, 10), Levator resection (L-group, 4), and Frontalis suspension (F-group, 6).The preop-MRD1 was greatest in L-group (1.7 ± 1.0 mm) followed by the A-group (1.3 ± 0.5 mm) and the M-group (1.3 ± 0.5 mm). The F-group had the lowest (-0.4 ± 0.7 mm). Age was oldest in the M-group (58.6 ± 11.9 years) followed by the A-group (42.4 ± 18.9 years) and the F-group (27.2 ± 17.9 years). The L-group was the youngest (18.9 ± 11.5 years). The mean improved amount of MRD1 (ΔL) was 2.15 ± 0.90 mm. The ΔL was different among the four operative methods. The F-group was greatest (2.4 ± 1.5 mm) followed by the A-group (2.3 ± 0.5 mm) and the M-group (2.0 ± 0.6 mm). The L-group had the least improved amount of MRD1 (1.8 ± 0.8 mm). There were significant differences between the groups (P < 0.05), except between the F-group and the A-group (P = 0.284). The mean follow-up period was 8.1 ± 7.0 months. In the 3 groups except A-group, the ΔL decreased in follow-up periods, with different degree of decrement. Only in A-group, ΔL increased slightly in follow-up periods. We think this is due to relatively well preserved levator function and short follow-up period (5.4 ± 3.3 months) of A-group patients.The results of this review can be used in choosing blepharoptosis correction methods.

Relationship between Locations of Facial Injury and the Use of Bicycle Helmets: A Systematic Review.

The aim of this study is to review the protective effect of a bicycle helmet on each facial location systematically. PubMed was searched for articles published before December 12, 2014. The data were summarized, and the odds ratio (OR) between the locations of facial injury was calculated. A statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager (The Nordic Cochrane Centre). Bicycle helmets protect the upper and middle face from serious facial injury but do not protect the lower face. Non-wearers had significantly increased risks of upper facial injury (OR, 2.07; P<0.001) and of middle facial injury (OR, 1.97; P<0.001) as compared to helmet users. In the case of lower facial injury, however, only a slightly increased risk (OR, 1.42; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-3.00, P=0.36) was observed. The abovementioned results can be attributed to the fact that a helmet covers the head and forehead but cannot cover the lower face. However, helmets having a chin cap might decrease the risk of lower facial injury.