Search

This study aimed to investigate the incidence and recovery of neurosensory deficit (NSD) after LeFort I osteotomy over 12 months and identify any association between age, gender, and extent of surgical movement on recovery. Furthermore, the study explored the relationship between objective and subjective outcome measures.A prospective cohort study consisting of 31 patients. Subjects were assessed at baseline, 1 week (T1), 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months (T5) after LeFort I osteotomy. Objective assessment measures included pinprick (PP), static light touch (SLT), static 2-point discrimination (STPD), and electric pulp testing (EPT). Subjective reporting was undertaken using a visual analog scale. Patients rated the impact of NSD on intraoral and extraoral sites at the same time points as for objective measures.Twenty-eight patients (16 females and 12 males) with a mean age of 24.5 years (standard deviation, 7.4) completed the study. There was a notable reduction in NSD from T1 (85.7%) to T5 (17.9%). No significant differences were found with respect to the influence of gender; PP (P = 0.06), SLT (P = 0.10), STPD (P = 0.65) and EPT (P = 0.19) or extent of surgical movement; PP (P = 0.50), SLT (P = 0.72), STPD (P = 0.06) and EPT (P = 0.74) on NSD. Age is a significant factor for intraoral NSD in the immediate postoperative period; PP (P 0.0001) and SLT (P 0.0001). Subjectively, patients reported a high degree of concern associated with NSD immediately after surgery with a gradual reduction from T1 to T5. There is a significant difference in subjective reporting between those with intraoral NSD than those with no intraoral NSD at 12 months (P = 0.031).NSD is high after LeFort I surgery, particularly intraorally in the palate. At 12 months, the incidence of NSD is 17.9%. Recovery of NSD to a nonsignificant value from baseline takes up to 3 months for extraoral sites and between 3 and 6 months for intraoral soft tissues. The maxillary dentition continues to recover from NSD up to 12 months postsurgery. Age, gender, and extent of the surgical movement do not influence the extent of NSD at 12 months. Increasing age is associated with increased NSD at intraoral sites immediately after surgery. Intraoral NSD is more of a concern to patients than extraoral NSD. Patients' concerns associated with NSD reduced over time, demonstrating a degree of adaptation in the longer term.

To establish awareness, knowledge, use and experience in practice of a sodium valproate pregnancy prevention program (PPP) in Ireland ("prevent") among three healthcare professional (HCP) groups.A cross-sectional study using anonymous online surveys was conducted among general practitioners (GPs), pharmacists, and specialist consultants. Descriptive analyses are presented.HCP response rates were 5.8% for GPs (90/1544), 10.7% for pharmacists (219/2052), and 7.6% for specialists (17/224). Across HCP groups, there was high awareness (90%) for specialist referral when female valproate patients are planning pregnancy, or become pregnant, but less awareness to refer annually for specialist review. While awareness of a possible teratogenic effect at any stage of pregnancy was high (80%), most GPs (62.2%, 95% CI: 51.3, 71.9%) and community pharmacists (53.1%, 95% CI: 43.2, 62.8%) were unsure of the magnitude of risk for developmental disorders, while most specialists under-estimated this risk (46.7%, 95% CI: 24.8, 69.9%). Although70% of the respondents identified valproate to be contraindicated in any woman of childbearing potential unless the conditions of the PPP are fulfilled, experience implementing key elements in practice varied.Our findings suggest continued effort is needed to ensure optimal implementation of "prevent" into clinical practice in Ireland.

BACKGROUND AND AIM Hepatitis C virus (HCV) cure with direct-acting antiviral (DAA) therapy improves survival in patients with HCV-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We hypothesized that HCV-HCC survival has increased in the DAA era, more than other aetiologies of HCC. We aimed to evaluate survival following HCC diagnosis in the pre-DAA and DAA eras, across each aetiology of HCC. METHODS Patients with HCC at three tertiary referral hospitals were included retrospectively (January 2008 to December 2019). Patients were categorized as HCV-HCC, hepatitis B virus (HBV)-HCC, or non-viral HCC. For each aetiology, the risk of death following incident HCC among patients diagnosed in the DAA era (2015-2019) was compared with patients diagnosed in the pre-DAA era (2008-2014). RESULTS Among 1161 patients, there were 422 (36%) patients with HCV-HCC, 227 (20%) with HBV-HCC, and 512 (44%) with non-viral HCC. In adjusted analysis, the risk of death was lower in patients with HCV-HCC diagnosed in 2015-2019, compared with patients diagnosed in 2008-2014 (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-0.89; P = 0.005). In contrast, there was no difference in the risk of death between time periods for patients with HBV-HCC (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.64-1.29; P = 0.602) or non-viral HCC on adjusted analysis (aHR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.74-1.15; P = 0.476). Although patients with HBV-HCC had better survival compared with patients with HCV-HCC in 2008-2014 (aHR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.55-0.98; P = 0.037), this difference disappeared in 2015-2019 (aHR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.90-1.77; P = 0.175). CONCLUSIONS Hepatitis C virus-related HCC survival has increased in the DAA era, whereas adjusted survival remained stable for HBV-HCC and non-viral HCC.

Introduction Optimal reporting of randomized trials and abstracts enhances transparency and facilitates assessment and identification of trials. The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials published in orthodontic journals. Methods Electronic searches with supplementary hand searching to identify randomized controlled trials in the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, the Angle Orthodontist, the European Journal of Orthodontics, and the Journal of Orthodontics from 2006 to 2011 were undertaken. The completeness of abstract reporting was evaluated with a modified CONSORT for abstracts statement checklist. The data were analyzed by using descriptive statistics followed by univariate and multivariate examinations of statistical associations (P = 0.05). Results Abstracts of 117 randomized controlled trials were identified and assessed. Most were published in either the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (53%) or the Angle Orthodontist (23%); most abstracts (85.5%) were structured. The mean overall reporting quality score was 60.2%. In relation to individual quality items, most abstracts demonstrated clear reporting of interventions (97.4%), objectives (93.2%), and number of participants randomized (95.7%). Insufficient reporting of randomization procedures, allocation concealment, blinding, and failure to report confidence intervals and harms were almost universal. Registrations of randomized controlled trials and sources of funding were not reported in any of the identified abstracts. The highest reporting score was noted in the Journal of Orthodontics (66%; 95% confidence interval, 63.5-68.7). Conclusions The quality of reporting of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in orthodontic journals is suboptimal. In view of the primacy of research abstracts, efforts should be made to improve their reporting.