DocumentsDate added
Original article
Amit Anand1*,Alin Kumar Nayak2,Nirmalya Nirbisank3
1 Third year PG student, Department of General Surgery, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
2 Third year PG student, Department of General Surgery, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
3 Senior resident, Department of General Surgery, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
The name of the department(s) and institution(s) to which the work should be attributed:
Department of General Surgery, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India
Address reprint requests to
*Dr Amit Anand, 3rd yr PG student, Department of General Surgery, Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospital, Bhubaneshwar, Orissa, India
Article citation: Anand A, Nayak AK,Nirbisank N. Case study on various presentation and management of acute intestinal obstruction. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2016;06(02):121–123.Available at www.jpbms.info
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20936/jpbms/160208
ABSTRACT
Bowel obstruction remains one of the most common intra-abdominal problems faced by general surgeons in their practice whether caused by hernia, neoplasm, adhesions or related to biochemical disturbance. Small or large bowel continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality to identify and analyse the clinical presentation, management and outcome of the patients with acute intestinal obstruction. The objectives are to study the various mode of presentation, various causes, influence of various factor like age, sex, diet and socioeconomic status in the pathogenesis of intestinal obstruction, morbidity and mortality rates in acute intestinal obstruction.
Materials and Methods Clinical study of intestinal obstruction were collected from case admitted to various surgical wards in Hi-Tech Medical College and Hospitals, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India, during the period from August 2013 to September 2015.
Results The study was conducted on 50 cases who were admitted in Hi-Tech Medical College with features of intestinal obstruction.
Conclusion In this study we assess the common causes of intestinal obstruction in different age groups and its management.
KEYWORDS acute intestinal obstruction, gastrointestinal, adhesions
REFERENCES
1.Scott G Houghton, Antonio Ramos De la Medina, Michael G Sarr. Bowel obstruction, 11th ed., Ch 17. In: Michael J Zinner, Stanley W Ashley, (eds): Maingot’s Abdominal Operations.New York: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2007. pp. 479–505.
2.Drake RL, Vogl WA, Mitchell AWM. Abdomen, 2nd ed., Ch 4.In: Gary’s Anatomy for Student. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone Elsevier; 2010. p. 300.
3.William F Ganong. Regulation of gastrointestinal function, 19th ed., Ch 26. In: Review of Medical Physiology. Philadelphia, USA: Appleton and Lance; 1999. p. 483.
4.Zinner MJ, Ashley SW. Maingot’s Abdominal Operation. History of Acute Intestinal Obstruction, 11th ed. 2008; pp. 479–507.
5.Tsumura H, Ichikawa T, Murakami Y, Sueda T. Laproscopic adhesiolysis recurrent small bowel obstruction. Hepatogastroenterology. 2004;51:1058–61.
6.Maa J, Kirkwood KS. The Appendix. In: Townsend CM Jr,Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL, (eds): Sabiston Textbook of Surgery, 18th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders Elsevier; 2008. pp. 1333–47.
7.Becker JM, Stucchi AF. Intraabdominal adhesion prevention: are we getting any closer? Ann Surg. 2012;240:202–4.
8.Fazio VW, Cohen Z, Fleshman JW, van Goor H, Bauer JJ, Wolff BG, et al. Reduction in adhesive small-bowel obstruction by Seprafilm adhesion barrier after intestinal resection. DisColon Rectum. 2010;49:1–11.
9.Bass KN, Jones B, Bulkley GB. Current management of small bowel obstruction. Adv Surg. 2013;31:1–33.
10.Ağaoğlu N, Yücel Y, Türkyilmaz S. Surgical treatment of sigmoid volvulous. Acta Chir Belg. 2014;105:365–8.
Statement of originality of work: The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, the requirements for authorship have been met, and that each author believes
that the manuscript represents honest and original work.
Sources of support: None
Competing interest / Conflict of interest: The author(s) have no competing interests for financial support, publication of this research,patents, and royalties through this collaborative research. All authors were equally involved in discussed research work. There is no financial conflict with the subject matter discussed in the manuscript.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense.
Original article
Sarat Kumar Behera*,Sudeep Kumar Patra,Saiprasanna Behera
Department of TB and Chest, Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital, Pandara, Rasulgarh,Bhubaneswar, Odisha-751025, India
Address reprint requests to
*Dr. Sarat Kumar Behera,
Associate Professor, Department of TB and Chest,Hi-Tech Medical College & Hospital,Pandara, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar,Odisha-751025, India
Article citation: Behera SK, Patra SK,Behera S. A study on budesonide/formoterol vs. fluticasone/salmeterol inhaled combination in moderate to severe asthma. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2016;06(02):124–129.Available at www.jpbms.info
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20936/jpbms/160209
ABSTRACT
Background and Objectives The addition of an inhaled long-acting β2-agonist (LABA) to an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) gives optimal control of asthma in most patients. The LABA salmeterol xinafoate (salmeterol) with inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) fluticasone propionate (fluticasone) and formoterol with budesonide are available as a combination product pMDI in a single aerosol inhaler. This study compared the efficacy and safety of commercially available salmeterol/fluticasone with formeterol/budesonide.
Materials and Methods Patients aged >12 years inclusive of either sex (N = 40) with persistent asthma as defined by NHLBI for >6 months prior to screening were included in the study. After a screening phase (1 week), eligible patients were enrolled in the study with 2 weeks run-in period. Eligible patients were randomized to receive either of the two treatment groups [HFA-propelled pMDI salmeterol/fluticasone (50/100 mcg) or HFA propelled formoterol/budesonide (6/100 mcg) pMDI] in a ratio of 1:1 for the 12-week treatment period. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of salmeterol/fluticasone vs. formoterol/budesonide, measured by mean pre-dose forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), at week 12.
Results This study provides evidence for the primary efficacy endpoint that salmeterol/ fluticasone was statistically as well as clinically non-inferior to formoterol/budesonide in the treatment of patients with persistent asthma. This was supported by secondary endpoints which demonstrate that salmeterol/fluticasone appeared to be comparable to formoterol/budesonide in terms of efficacy for the secondary efficacy endpoints (morning PEFR, evening PEFR, diurnal variability of PEFR, daytime and night-time asthma symptoms score, average need for short-acting β2-agonists, proportion of patients that required rescue medication, patients with nocturnal asthma, patients without asthma symptoms of score 0 and average number of days without asthma symptoms of score 0). Salmeterol/fluticasone was safe and well tolerated; and safety profile is comparable to comparator formoterol/budesonide.
Conclusion The results of this study demonstrate that HFA formulations of salmeterol/fluticasone and formoterol/budesonide are clinically interchangeable. Overall, the study indicates that HFA-propelled salmeterol/fluticasone (50/100 mcg) pMDI was safe, well tolerated and non-inferior in efficacy compared to HFA-propelled formoterol/budesonide (6/100 mcg) pMDI.
KEYWORDS acute intestinal obstruction, gastrointestinal, adhesions
REFERENCES
1.Saetta M, Di Stefano А, Rosina C, Thiene G, Fabbri LM. Quantitative structural analysis of peripheral airways and arteries in sudden fatal asthma. Am Rev Resp Dis. 1991;143(1):138–43.
2.Carroll N, Cooke C, James A. The distribution of eosinophils and lymphocytes in the large and small airways of asthmatics. Eur Respir J. 1997;10(2):292–300.
3.Caroll N, Carello S, Cooke C, James A. Airway structure and inflammatory cells in fatal attacks of asthma. Eur Respir J. 1996;9(4):709–15.
4.Mauad T, Silva LF, Santos MA, Grinberg L, Bernardi FD, Martins MA. Abnormal alveolar attachments with decreased elastic fiber content in distal lung in fatal asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170:857–62.
5.Hamid Q, Song Y, Kotsimbos TC, et al. Inflammation of small airways in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1997;100(1):44–51.
6.Balzar S, Wenzel SE, Chu HW. Transbronchial biopsy as a tool to evaluate small airways in asthma. Eur Respir J. 2002;20(2):254–9.
7.Hamid QA. Peripheral inflammation is more important than central inflammation. Respir Med. 1997;91(Suppl. A):11–2.
8.Mitchell HW, Cvetkovski R, Sparrow MP, et al. Concurrent measurement of smooth muscle shortening, lumen narrowing and flow to acetylcholine in large and small porcine bronchi. Eur Respir J. 1998;12(5):1053–61.
9.Ellis JL, Hubbard WC, Meeker S, Undem BJ. Ragweed antigen E and anti-IgE in human central versus peripheral isolated bronchi. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1994;150(3):717–23.
10.Wenzel SE, Szefler SJ, Leung DY, et al. Bronchoscopic evaluation of severe asthma. Persistent inflammation associated with high dose glucocorticoids. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.1997;156(3):737–43.
11.Newnham DM, Grove A, McDevitt DG, Lipworth BJ. Subsensitivity of bronchodilator and systemic beta 2 adrenoceptor responses after regular twice daily treatment with formoterol dry powder in asthmatic patients. Thorax 1995;50:497–504.
12.Cates CJ, Cates MJ. The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 1.
13.Miller MR, Hankinson J, Brusasco V, et al. Standardisation of spirometry. Eur Respir J. 2005;26 (Suppl. 2):319–38.
14.Quanjer PH, Tammeling GJ, Cotes JE, et al. Lung volumes and forced ventilatory flows. Report Working Party Standardization of Lung Function Tests, European Community for Steel and Coal. Official Statement of the European Respiratory Society. Eur Respir J Suppl. 1993;16:5–40.
15.Kardos P, Wencker M, Glaab T, et al. Impact of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus salmeterol on exacerbations in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175:144–9.
16.Ilyina TI, Chervinskaya TA, Bondareva GP, Vylegzhanina TG. Efficacy and safety of use of combined Flixotid drug in patients with moderate asthma. Primary Doctor 10/02.
17.Selivanova PA. Evaluation of controller medication efficiency in patients with moderate and severe uncontrolled asthma. Bull Siberian Med. 2009;71–7.
18.Juniper EF, Svensson K, Mork FC. Measurement properties and interpretation of three shortened versions of the Astma Control Questionnaire. Respir Med. 2005;99:553–8.
19.Zhong N, Lin J, Mehta P, Ngamjanyaporn P, Wu TC, Yunus F. Real-life effectiveness of budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy in asthma patients across Asia: SMARTASIA study. BMC Pulm Med. 2013;13:22.
20.Kardos P, Wencker M, Glaab T, Vogelmeier C. Impact of salmeterol/fluticasone propionate versus salmeterol on exacerbations in severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007;175:144–9.
21.Masoli M, Weatherall M, Holt S, Shirtcliffe P, Beasley R. Inhaled fluticasone propionate and adrenal effects in adult asthma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2006;28: 960–967.
22.Aubier M, Wettenger R, Gans SJ. Efficacy of HFA-beclomethasone dipropionate extra-fine aerosol (800 microg day (-1)) versus HFA-fluticasone propionate (1000 microg day (-1)) in patients with asthma. Respir Med. 2001;95:212–20.
23.Quanjer PH, Tammeling GJ, Cotes JE, Pedersen OF, Peslin R,Yernault JC. Lung volumes and forced ventilator flows. Report Working Party Standardization of Lung Function Tests, European Community for Steel and Coal. Official Statement of the European Respiratory Society. Eur Respir J. 1993;16:5–40.
24.Papi A, Canonica GW, Maestrelli P, Paggiaro P, Olivieri D, Pozzi E et al. Rescue use of beclomethasone and albuterol in a single inhaler for mild asthma. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2040–52.
25.Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence:the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ. 1996;313:36–9.
26.Ebbutt AF, Frith L. Practical issues in equivalence trials. Stat Med. 1998;17:1691–701.
27.Dhillon S, Keating GM. Beclometasone dipropionate/formoterol:in an HFA propelled pressurised metered-dose inhaler.Drugs. 2006;66:1475–83.
28.Verbanck S, Schuermans D, Paiva M, Vincken W. The functional benefit of anti-inflammatory aerosols in the lung periphery. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118:340–6.
29.Martin RJ. Therapeutic significance of distal airway inflammation in asthma. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2002;2(Suppl.):S447–S460.
30.Goldin JG, Tashkin DP, Kleerup EC, Greaser LE, Haywood UM,Sayre JW et al. Comparative effects of hydrofluoroalkane and chlorofluorocarbon beclomethasone dipropionate inhalation on small airways: assessment with functional helical thin-section computed tomography. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 1999;104:S258–S267.
31.VanAalderen WM, Price D, De Baets FM, Price J. Beclometasone dipropionate extrafine aerosol versus fluticasone propionate in children with asthma. Respir Med. 2007;101:1585–93.
32.Rabe KF. Formoterol in clinical practice—safety issues. Respir Med. 2001;95(Suppl B):S21–S25.
Statement of originality of work: The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, the requirements for authorship have been met, and that each author believes
that the manuscript represents honest and original work.
Sources of support: None
Competing interest / Conflict of interest: The author(s) have no competing interests for financial support, publication of this research,patents, and royalties through this collaborative research. All authors were equally involved in discussed research work. There is no financial conflict with the subject matter discussed in the manuscript.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense.
Original article
Ajit Swamy1*,Kartikeya Sharma2,Mukesh Phalak3,Divyansu Goyel4,Aniruddha Khirsagar5
1 HOU & Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. DY Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Pimpri, Pune, India
2,5 PG Final Year, Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. DY Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre,Pimpri, Pune, India
3 Associate Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. DY Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre,Pimpri, Pune, India
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. DY Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre,Pimpri, Pune, India
Address reprint requests to
*Dr. Ajit Swamy, HOU & Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, Dr. DY Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre, Pimpri, Pune, India
Article citation: Swamy A, Sharma K,Phalak M, Goyel D, Khirsagar A. A study of arthroscopic management of meniscal injuries in 20 patients. J Pharm Biomed Sci 2016;06(02):130–133. Available at www.jpbms.info
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.20936/jpbms/1602010
ABSTRACT
Background Meniscal injuries are common as a result of sports related injuries and motor vehicle accidents. Current arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is indicated for the management of meniscal tears because of early rehabilitation and return to work and minimal complications. Present study is a hospital-based retrospective study of 20 adult cases admitted at Dr. DY Patil Medical College from January 2015 to January 2016. Common age group was between 10 and 40 years with mean of 27.05 years.
Aims and Objectives To study the effectiveness of arthroscopic management of meniscal injuries using Lysholm knee scoring and Tapper and Hoover grading system. To determine the type of meniscal injury that occurs in clinically suspected cases of meniscal injuries.
Materials and Methods This study includes 20 cases of menisical injuries of knee treated by closed arthroscopic partial meniscectomy at Dr. DY Patil Medical College, Pune from January 2015 to January 2016. Follow up has been done up to 6 months. This is a retrospective time-bound study conducted during the period from January 2015 to January 2016. Sample size consists of 20 patients.
Results The study consists of 20 cases of meniscal injuries with or without ACL tear,treated surgically by partial meniscectomy, 17 patients were male and 3 patients were female. Meniscal injuries on right knee were 11 cases and left knee were 9 cases. Type of meniscal tear was longitudinal 10 cases, oblique 5 cases, horizontal 3 cases, radial 1 case and complex (with discoid meniscus) tear 1 case. Meniscal injuries associated with partial/complete ACL tear were 6 cases. There was one case of discoid meniscus. Surgery was performed at an average 1 month after meniscal tear, duration of hospital stay was 3–6 days ranging from 3–6 days, mean time for earliest return to work was 14.35 days with range 10–16 days. Excellent to good results were seen in 95% of cases. Conclusion Incidence of meniscal injuries is most common due to motor vehicle accident and other causes being sports related injuries and fall by slip. The advantage of arthroscopic meniscectomyis minimally invasive technique includes early return to work,minimal complications, early post-operative rehabilitation, short duration of hospital stay. Hence this is the preferred technique for treatment of meniscal injuries.
KEYWORDS meniscal injuries, arthroscopic management
REFERENCES
1.Simpson DA, Thomas NP, Aichroth PM. Open and closed meniscectomy. A comparative analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1986;68:301–4.
2.Dandy DJ. The arthroscopic anatomy of symptomatic meniscal lesions. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72:628–33.
3.Shrive NG, O’Connor JJ, Goodfellow JW. Load-bearing in the knee joint. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1978;(131):279–87.
4.Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Endoscopic meniscectomy. Int Orthop.1981;5(4):265–70.
5.Rao SK, Rao PS. Lysholm II scoring system to evaluate meniscal injury. Indian J Orthop. 1997;31(2):107–9.
6.Dandy DJ, Jackson RW. The impact of arthroscopy on the management of disorders of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1975;57:346–48.
7.Umar M. Ambulatory arthroscopic knee surgery: results of partial meniscectomy. J Pak Med Assoc. 1997;47(8):210–3.
8.Dandy DJ. Early results of closed partial meniscectomy. Br Med J. 1978;1099–100.
9.Tapper EM, Hoover NW. Late results after meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51(3):517–26.
10.McGinity JB, Geuss LF, Marvin RA. Partial or total meniscectomy:a comparative analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977;59:763–6.
11.Gillquist J, Oretorp N. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Technique and long-term results. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;167:29–33.
12.Tregonning RJ. Closed partial meniscectomy: early results for simple tears with mechanical systems. J Bone Joint Surg Br.1983;65:378–82.
13.Whipple TL, Caspari RB, Meyers JF. Arthroscopic meniscectomy.An interim report at three to four years after operation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1984;183:105–14.
Statement of originality of work: The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors, the requirements for authorship have been met, and that each author believes that the manuscript represents honest and original work.
Sources of support: None
Competing interest / Conflict of interest: The author(s) have no competing interests for financial support, publication of this research,patents, and royalties through this collaborative research. All authors were equally involved in discussed research work. There is no financial conflict with the subject matter discussed in the manuscript.
Disclaimer: Any views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense.