Background Describe the efficacy of a galenic glycopyrrolate formulation and its impact on patients with sialorrhea Quality of Life (QoL), including costs analysis. Methods We performed a retrospective observational study on 21 patients who received a custom-formulated galenic glycopyrrolate syrup for sialorrhea for an average period of 14.3 months. We analyzed the telephone interviews with elaborated and validated questionnaires and the therapy costs comparing the brand marketed drug with the galenic formulation. Results Overall, 16 out of 21 patients (76.2%) reported a significant improvement in sialorrhea and QoL. In 14 subjects (66.7%), there was a remarkable decrease in the drooling severity; 10 individuals (47.6%) reported a reduction in drooling frequency. Nine patients experienced at least one adverse effect of glycopyrrolate therapy, and three of them stopped the treatment. No severe side effects were observed. The galenic drug significantly reduced costs for patients. Conclusions An oral glycopyrrolate solution easily administered to children with brain injuries is not commercially available in many European countries. This study demonstrates the efficacy of a compounded glycopyrrolate syrup on drooling severity, frequency and ensures a better QoL in patients and their caregivers.
(1) Background: The Ponseti Method is the gold standard for the treatment of congenital clubfoot. It is a low-cost treatment consisting in a series of plaster casts, a percutaneous Achilles’ tenotomy and a Mitchell Ponseti brace to wear with a definite protocol. This treatment allows children to be with their families instead of being hospitalized. This advantage is also a challenge for the families that have to follow the protocol at home. This paper aims to analyze the perception, the difficulties and the overcomes of the families during the treatment. (2) Methods: We used a 41 questions questionnaire by Nogueira and Morquende. Questions were answered by families who had already finished the treatment or were still following it. (3) Results: We interviewed 92 families. The worst handling phase appeared to be the cast phase, while the brace seemed more bearable. In total, 57 families overrated tenotomy; (4) Conclusions: Families perceived the Ponseti Method as a quality treatment. The anxiety about the diagnosis played a strong role, but none of the difficulties encountered decreased the treatment outcomes or affected families’ adherence to the protocol. The open-ended answers highlighted that the positive relationship with doctors played a key role in the everyday compliance and the achievement of good results.
Clubfoot is the most frequent congenital malformation of the foot, affecting more than 1–2 subjects per 1.000 newborns. Without appropriate treatment, a child with congenital clubfoot will never be able to walk physiologically with a dramatic impact on the quality of life. In the last decades, different corrective solutions have been proposed, and there is rising scientific evidence that the Ponseti non-invasive method is safe and effective in the treatment of the clubfoot. So, what should a general paediatrician know about this condition and what should he concretely do in the suspect of a congenital clubfoot?
Intestinal malrotation includes anomalies of intestinal rotation and fixation occurred during embryogenesis. It may present with acute or chronic-intermittent symptoms or remain asymptomatic. There are several methods to identify a defect of intestinal rotation, however an upper gastrointestinal series remains the method of choice in non-acute cases. Surgical correction is performed by open laparotomy, while the laparoscopic approach is reserved only to selected cases. This article suggests an evaluation of children with suspected intestinal malrotation and gives information about its management and complications to paediatricians.
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.