Comparison of device-supported sensorimotor training and splint intervention for myofascial temporomandibular disorder pain patients.

This study was to compare the short-term therapeutic efficacy of device-supported sensorimotor training with that of standard splint therapy for patients with myofascial temporomandibular disorder (TMD) pain over a treatment period of 3 months. We tested the hypothesis that both types of intervention are equally effective for pain reduction. In addition, the electromyographic (EMG) activity of the temporal and masseter muscles was recorded under conditions of force-controlled submaximum and maximum biting in intercuspation. Of consecutive patients seeking treatment for non-odontogenic oro-facial pain, 45 patients with myofascial TMD pain (graded chronic pain status, GCPS, I and II) were randomly assigned to 2 treatment groups (sensorimotor training and conventional splint treatment). Patients were evaluated 4 times (initial examination, 2, 6 and 12 weeks later) by use of the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). Electromyographic activity was recorded at the initial session and after 3 months. Ease-of-use of the treatment options was also evaluated. Significant (P < .0001) pain reduction (sensorimotor training 53%, splint therapy 40%) was achieved for both groups, with no significant differences (P > .05) between the groups. Force-controlled sub-maximum normalized electromyographic activity was significantly different between T0 and T3 for group A (sensorimotor training, P < .05) but was not significantly different for group B (splint, P > .05). For normalized maximum-biting EMG activity in intercuspation, however, a significant increase in EMG activity was observed for group A for the masseter and temporal muscles (P < .001) and for group B for the masseter muscle only (P < .001). Moreover, sensorimotor training was significantly (P < .05) less easy to use than the splint. The results of this study confirm the pain-reducing effect of sensorimotor training for patients with myofascial TMD pain (GCPS I and II). This innovative active treatment might be a promising option for TMD pain patients.

Patterns of care in patients with cervical cancer 2012: results of a survey among German radiotherapy departments and out-patient health care centers.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based primary or adjuvant chemoradiation is the treatment of choice for patients with cervical cancer. However, despite national guidelines and international recommendations, many aspects in diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up of patients with cervical cancer are not based on valid data. METHODS: To evaluate the current patterns of care for patients with cervical cancer in Germany, a questionnaire with 25 items was sent to 281 radiooncologic departments and out-patient health care centers. RESULTS: The response rate was 51%. While 87% of institutions treat 0-25 patients/year, 12 % treat between 26 and 50 and only 1% treat more than 50 patients/year. In 2011, the stage distribution of 1,706 treated cervical cancers were IB1, IB2, IIA, IIB, IIIA/IIIB, and IV in 11, 12, 11, 22, 28, and 16%, respectively. CT (90%) and MRI (86%) are mainly used as staging procedures in contrast to PET-CT with 14%. Interestingly, 27% of institutions advocate surgical staging prior to chemoradiation. In the majority of departments 3D-based (70%) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (76%) are used for percutaneous radiation, less frequently volumetric arc techniques (26%). Nearly all colleagues (99.3%) apply conventional fractioning of 1.8-2 Gy for external-beam radiotherapy, in 19% combined with a simultaneous integrated boost. Cisplatinum mono is used as a radiosensitizer with 40 mg/m(2) weekly by 90% of radiooncologists. For boost application in the primary treatment, HDR (high-dose rate) brachytherapy is the dominant technique (84%). In patients after radical hysterectomy pT1B1/1B2, node negative and resection in sound margins adjuvant chemoradiation is applied due to the occurrence of 1-4 other risk factors in 16-97%. There is a broad spectrum of recommended primary treatment strategies in stages IIB and IVA. CONCLUSION: Results of the survey underline the leading role but also differences in the use of chemoradiation in the treatment of cervical cancer patients in Germany.