The Beneficial Role of Anchomanes difformis in STZ-Induced Reproductive Dysfunction in Male Wistar Rats.

BACKGROUND: Progression of diabetes mellitus has increasingly led to several diabetic complications. Diabetes is one of the major factors implicated in male reproductive system damage. Recent approaches such as the use of medicinal plants have been explored in the management of diabetes and associated complications. Anchomanes difformis (common name: children's umbrella) has been shown to possess anti-diabetic ability in animal model. Therefore, this study seeks to investigate the potency of Achomanes difformis in ameliorating diabetes-induced reproductive dysfunction. METHODS: Type 2 diabetes was induced in male Wistar rats with 10% fructose administration for 2 weeks and an intraperitoneal injection of 40mg/kgBW of streptozotocin. Aqueous extract (200mg and 400mg/kgBW) of Anchomanes difformis leaves was administered daily for 6 weeks. The rats were randomly divided into 7 groups with a minimum of eight rats in each (8 rats in normal groups and 10 in diabetic groups). The impact of diabetes and treatment was investigated by estimating sperm concentration, motility indices, viability and morphological parameters in the normal, treatment controls and diabetic rats using CASA-SCA system. Histological examination of the testes and epididymis was performed. RESULTS: Diabetes induction resulted in significant decrease in sperm concentration, viability and some motility parameters with 40% abnormalities in sperm morphology. The administration of Anchomanes difformis significantly increased sperm concentration and sperm viability, while it significantly improved the percentage of morphologically normal sperm in diabetic rats. Anchomanes difformis ameliorated testicular damage such as vacuolization and loss of germinal epithelium in the diabetic-treated rats when compared to the diabetic controls. CONCLUSION: The potency Anchomanes difformis displayed against diabetic-induced damage in the reproductive system might be a new and promising tool in the management of male reproductive dysfunctions and associated complications in diabetes mellitus.

Intrathecal Morphine Following Lumbar Fusion: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the potential for faster postoperative recovery and the ease of direct intraoperative injection, intrathecal morphine is rarely provided in lumbar spine surgery. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of intrathecal morphine following lumbar fusion. METHODS: We randomly assigned 150 patients undergoing elective instrumented lumbar fusion to receive a single intrathecal injection of morphine (0.2 mg) or placebo (normal saline) immediately prior to wound closure. The primary outcome was pain on the visual-analogue scale during the first 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes included respiratory depression, treatment-related side effects, postoperative opioid requirements, and length of hospital stay. An intention-to-treat, repeated-measures analysis was used to estimate outcomes according to treatment in the primary analysis. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups were similar. Intrathecal morphine reduced pain both at rest (32% area under the curves [AUCs] difference, P < .01) and with movement (22% AUCs difference, P < .02) during the initial 24 h after surgery. The risk of respiratory depression was not increased by intrathecal morphine (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.44 to 1.68; P = .66). Although postoperative opioid requirements were reduced with intrathecal morphine (P < .03), lengths of hospital stay were similar (P = .32). Other than a trend towards increased intermittent catheterization among patients assigned to intrathecal morphine (P = .09), treatment-related side effects did not significantly differ. The early benefits of intrathecal morphine on postoperative pain were no longer apparent after 48 h. CONCLUSION: A single intrathecal injection of 0.2 mg of morphine safely reduces postoperative pain following lumbar fusion.

Oblique Intrathecal Injection in Lumbar Spine Surgery: A Technical Note.

OBJECTIVES: Intrathecal morphine (ITM) is an efficacious method of providing postoperative analgesia and reducing pain associated complications. Despite adoption in many surgical fields, ITM has yet to become a standard of care in lumbar spine surgery. Spine surgeons' reticence to make use of the technique may in part be attributed to concerns of precipitating a cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leak. METHODS: Herein we describe a method for oblique intrathecal injection during lumbar spine surgery to minimize risk of CSF leak. The dural sac is penetrated obliquely at a 30° angle to offset dural and arachnoid puncture sites. Oblique injection in instances of limited dural exposure is made possible by introducing a 60° bend to a standard 30-gauge needle. RESULTS: The technique was applied for injection of ITM or placebo in 104 cases of lumbar surgery in the setting of a randomized controlled trial. Injection was not performed in two cases (2/104, 1.9%) following preinjection dural tear. In the remaining 102 cases no instances of postoperative CSF leakage attributable to oblique intrathecal injection occurred. Three cases (3/102, 2.9%) of transient CSF leakage were observed immediately following intrathecal injection with no associated sequelae or requirement for postsurgical intervention. In two cases, the observed leak was repaired by sealing with fibrin glue, whereas in a single case the leak was self-limited requiring no intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Oblique dural puncture was not associated with increased incidence of postoperative CSF leakage. This safe and reliable method of delivery of ITM should therefore be routinely considered in lumbar spine surgery.

Twelve-month results of a multicenter, blinded, pilot study of a novel peptide (B2A) in promoting lumbar spine fusion.

OBJECT: Failure of fusion after a transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) procedure is a challenging problem that can lead to ongoing low-back pain, dependence on pain medication, and inability to return to work. B2A is a synthetic peptide that has proven efficacy in achieving fusion in animal models and may have a better safety profile than bone morphogenetic protein. The authors undertook this study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of B2A peptide-enhanced ceramic granules (Prefix) in comparison with autogenous iliac crest bone graft (ICBG, control) in patients undergoing single-level TLIF. METHODS: Twenty-four patients with single-level degenerative disorders of the lumbar spine at L2-S1 requiring TLIF were enrolled between 2009 and 2010. They were randomly assigned to 3 groups: a control group (treated with ICBG, n = 9), a Prefix 150 group (treated with Prefix 150 µg/cm(3) granules, n = 8), and a Prefix 750 group (treated with Prefix 750 µg/cm(3) granules, n = 7). Outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog pain scale, and radiographic fusion as assessed by CT and dynamic flexion/extension lumbar plain radiographs. RESULTS: At 12 months after surgery, the radiographic fusion rate was 100% in the Prefix 750 group, 78% in the control group, and 50% in the Prefix 150 group, although the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.08). At 6 weeks the mean ODI score was 41.0 for the control group, 27.7 for the Prefix 750 group, and 32.2 for the Prefix 150 group, whereas at 12 months the mean ODI was 24.4 for control, 31.1 for Prefix 750, and 29.7 for Prefix 150 groups. Complications were evenly distributed among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prefix appears to provide a safe alternative to autogenous ICBG. Prefix 750 appears to show superior radiographic fusion when compared with autograft at 12 months after TLIF, although no statistically significant difference was demonstrated in this small study. Prefix and control groups both appeared to demonstrate comparable improvements to ODI at 12 months.

Manipulation or microdiskectomy for sciatica? A prospective randomized clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of spinal manipulation against microdiskectomy in patients with sciatica secondary to lumbar disk herniation (LDH). METHODS: One hundred twenty patients presenting through elective referral by primary care physicians to neurosurgical spine surgeons were consecutively screened for symptoms of unilateral lumbar radiculopathy secondary to LDH at L3-4, L4-5, or L5-S1. Forty consecutive consenting patients who met inclusion criteria (patients must have failed at least 3 months of nonoperative management including treatment with analgesics, lifestyle modification, physiotherapy, massage therapy, and/or acupuncture) were randomized to either surgical microdiskectomy or standardized chiropractic spinal manipulation. Crossover to the alternate treatment was allowed after 3 months. RESULTS: Significant improvement in both treatment groups compared to baseline scores over time was observed in all outcome measures. After 1 year, follow-up intent-to-treat analysis did not reveal a difference in outcome based on the original treatment received. However, 3 patients crossed over from surgery to spinal manipulation and failed to gain further improvement. Eight patients crossed from spinal manipulation to surgery and improved to the same degree as their primary surgical counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Sixty percent of patients with sciatica who had failed other medical management benefited from spinal manipulation to the same degree as if they underwent surgical intervention. Of 40% left unsatisfied, subsequent surgical intervention confers excellent outcome. Patients with symptomatic LDH failing medical management should consider spinal manipulation followed by surgery if warranted.

Repeated failure of epidural analgesia: an association with epidural fat?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To report the case of a patient who experienced repeated failed epidural analgesia associated with an unusual amount of fat in the epidural space (epidural lipomatosis). CASE REPORT: A 44-year-old female presented for an elective small bowel resection. An L(1-2) epidural catheter was placed for postoperative analgesia. The patient gave no indication of having pain at the time of emergence from general anesthesia or in the first 2 hours in the recovery room. Assessment of the level of hypoesthesia to ice while the patient was comfortable in the recovery room suggested a functional epidural catheter (cephalad level of T(10)). Two hours after admission to the recovery room the patient began to complain of increasing pain. Another 6 mL 0.25% bupivacaine was administered via the catheter. The patient's pain decreased, but remained substantial, and there was minimal evidence of sensory block above the T(10) level. Subsequently, a T(10) epidural catheter was placed. Testing confirmed proper placement of the catheter in the epidural space at the T(10) level. A test dose of 5 mL 0.25% bupivacaine resulted in prompt and complete relief of the patient's pain. However, the level of hypoesthesia to ice did not exceed the T(10) level. Approximately 1 hour later the patient complained of increasing discomfort again. There was no evidence of any sensory block, and there was no response to a bolus of 8 mL 1% lidocaine. A thorough examination of the patient did not suggest any cause for the pain other than a malfunctioning epidural catheter. A third epidural catheter was placed at the T(8-9) level. This catheter was again confirmed to be in the epidural space with a test dose of 10 mL 0.5% bupivacaine. The level of hypoesthesia to ice was restricted to a narrow bilateral band from T(7)-T(9). Analgesia failed 2 hours later. The epidural catheter was removed and the patient's pain was subsequently managed with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) morphine. A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan revealed extensive epidural fat dorsal to the spinal cord from C(5)-C(7) and from T(3)-T(9). An imaging diagnosis of asymptomatic epidural lipomatosis was established. CONCLUSION: We have described a case of repeated failure of epidural analgesia in a patient with epidural lipomatosis.