Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.
We think that berberine and coenzyme Q10 can usefully be employed as therapy due to their antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects in an experimentally induced allergic rhinitis model.
The purpose of this study was to compare the success rates and hearing outcomes of transcanal composite chondroperichondrial cartilage graft with that of underlay temporal muscle fascia (TMF) graft for myringoplasty. In this retrospective study, the medical records of patients who underwent type 1 myringoplasty between September 2015 and February 2018 at Otorhinolaryngology Department of Erzurum Ataturk University were reviewed. Demographic properties, preoperative otological findings, preoperative pure ton audiogram findings, postoperative pure ton audiogram findings, and duration of surgeries were reviewed from medical records. The patients with lack of one or more of these information at medical records or lost to at least 3 months of follow-up were excluded from the study. According to the graft material used in the operation, the patients were divided into 2 groups. The patients operated with cartilage graft by transcanal composite chondropericondrial cartilage graft myringoplasty (TCM) technique was regarded as first group, while patients operated with temporal fascia was regarded as the second group (TMF). Both groups were compared according to preoperative and postoperative air–bone gap (ABG), graft acceptance rate, and duration of operation using SPSS version 20.0 software. A total of 113 patients whose medical records met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Of these, 59 underwent TCM and 54 underwent TMF myringoplasty. Tympanic membrane perforation closure success rate was higher in the cartilage group (94.9%) than in the fascia group (83.3%; P = .046). In the former, preoperative and postoperative ABG was 19.5 ± 5 and 10.8 ± 4.8 dB, respectively. In the latter, the corresponding values were 20.7 ± 5.4 and 11.5 ± 5.4 dB, respectively ( P < .05). Duration of surgery was 29.5 ± 3.4 minutes in the TCM group and 61.5 ± 6.0 minutes in the TMF group ( P < .05). Transcanal cartilage myringoplasty could be considered as an appropriate surgical option because of its simplicity, shorter operation time, and rapid patient recovery, with no significant difference in terms of hearing outcomes compared to temporal fascia.
The purpose of this study was to employ biochemical, histopathological, and immunohistochemical methods to reveal the effectiveness of hesperidin and thymol in preventing radiotherapy-associated submandibular gland injury.Methods: A total of 48 female Sprague Dawley rats were randomly assigned into six groups of eight animals each. Group 1 represented the control group. Group 2 was regarded as hesperidin Group, and the rats received only hesperidin. Group 3 was regarded as thymol Group, and the rats received only thymol. Group 4 was regarded as a Radiotherapy Group, and the rats were exposed to radiotherapy at a dose of 15 Gy. Group 5 was regarded as hesperidin + Radiotherapy Group, and rats received hesperidin at a dose of 100 mg/kg daily for 1 week prior to radiotherapy exposition. Group 6 was regarded as thymol + Radiotherapy Group, and rats received thymol at a dose of 100 mg/kg daily for 1 week prior to radiotherapy exposition. Rats were sacrificed after radiotherapy and submandibular glands were dissected for biochemical and immunohistochemical evaluations.Results: We have shown that, thanks to their strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, hesperidin and thymol minimize the damage caused by radiation toxicity by decreasing oxidant levels and increasing antioxidant enzyme levels in the submandibular gland. We found that thymol showed more protective activity than hesperidin in terms of effectiveness on radiation toxicity.Conclusion: Hesperidin and thymol exhibit histopathological, immunochemical, and biochemical protection against radiation-related submandibular gland injury. To our knowledge, this is the first study in the literature in this field.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.