No abstract

Background: Air trapping evaluated in high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) reflects changes in small bronchi. We simultaneously evaluated focal and diffuse air trapping in asthmatic patients. Objectives: (1) To evaluate air trapping and bronchial wall thickness in asthmatics. (2) To estimate the relationship between air trapping and bronchial wall thickness, pulmonary function tests (PFTs), age, gender and asthma severity. (3) To compare air trapping between subgroups of asthmatic patients with normal FEV₁ % pred. and FEV₁/FVC % and controls. (4) To compare air trapping and bronchial wall thickness between aspirin-induced asthmatics (AIA) and aspirin-tolerant asthmatics (ATA). Methods: Both groups (asthmatics and controls) included 30 patients. All patients underwent HRCT and PFTs. Results: Focal (p < 0.0001) and diffuse (p = 0.0004) air trappings and bronchial wall thickness (T: p < 0.0001; T/D: p < 0.0001; WA%: p < 0.0001) were significantly greater in asthmatics. Focal and diffuse air trappings were inversely correlated (p = 0.021). Diffuse air trapping correlated with bronchial wall thickness: T/D (p = 0.047), T (p = 0.037), and WA% (p = 0.048). There was a significant difference in the extent of focal air trapping between a subgroup of asthmatics with normal FEV₁ % pred. and FEV₁/FVC % and controls (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in focal (p = 0.095) and diffuse air trapping (p = 0.186) and bronchial wall thickness (T: p = 0.086; T/D: p = 0.428; WA%: p = 0.428) between AIA and ATA patients. Conclusions: Both focal and diffuse air trappings provide valuable diagnostic information and therefore deserve to be estimated. The lack of significant differences in air trapping and bronchial wall thickness between AIA and ATA patients needs further investigation.

Purpose: The aim of this work was to evaluate postural stability on the balance platform averagely 2 years following meniscal repair. Methods: This is a retrospective, case-control comparative analysis of patients who underwent surgical repair for the isolated longitudinal traumatic meniscal tear versus matched healthy controls. The study group consisted of 30 patients (mean age 29.93 years; averagely 2.3 years after surgery) and the control group – of 30 people. Following physical examination and completion of the IKDC, and the Lysholm questionnaires, the evaluation of the postural stability using two single-leg stabilometry tests was performed. In the static test, the analyzed variables included deviations from the horizontal, vertical axes and the length of the balance path travelled. In the dynamic test, the length of the path travelled and the time to complete task were recorded. Between-limb and between-groups comparison of collected stabilometry tests were performed. Additionally, the IKDC and the Lysholm questionnaires scores were compared between the study and heathy groups. Results: No abnormalities were found on clinical examination in the study group nor any differences between the operated and contralateral knee (p > 0.05). In stabilometry: (1) in the study group, the operated extremity scored worse than the contralateral limb (length of path traveled in: A) static test x = 56.7 cm SD = 37.91 cm vs. x = 21.6 cm SD = 9.06 cm; p = 0.002 and B) dynamic test x = 82.57 cm, SD = 50.43 cm vs. x = 53.32 cm, SD = 13.82 cm; p = 0.003); (2) In the control group, no leg-related differences were noted (p > 0.05); (3) Between-group comparison revealed that the study group scored worse than the control group (length of path traveled in: A) static test x = 56.7 cm, SD = 37.91 cm vs. x = 17.23 cm, SD = 3.39 cm; p = 0.001 and B) dynamic test x = 82.57 cm, SD = 50.43 cm vs. x = 32.13 cm, SD = 9.41 cm; p < 0.001). Study group scored worse on IKDC scores (p < 0.001) but not on Lysholm score (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Postural stability deficit persists despite a successful meniscal repair.

No abstract