RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of rectal enemas on rectal doses during radical high-dose-rate (HDR) intracavitary cervical brachytherapy (BT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients suffering from cervical cancer and treated with external beam radiotherapy and HDR-BT were included in a prospective trial. The first brachytherapy fraction was considered the basal status, and patients were instructed to self-administer two rectal cleansing enemas before the second fraction. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) values were generated for the rectum and correlated with rectal volume variation. Brachytherapy was carried out with a Fletcher or Utrecht applicator. RESULTS: No significant rectal volume differences were observed between fractions with or without rectal enemas (without, 52.64 ± 15.92 cc; with, 53.16 ± 19.28 cc). There was a significant correlation between both rectal volumes (r = 0.722, p = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in analyzed DVH parameters (median values: ΔD0.1cc, 4.17 vs. 3.61 Gy; ΔD1cc, 3.23 vs. 2.87 Gy; ΔD2cc, 2.9 vs. 2.54 Gy; ΔD5cc, 2.35 vs. 2.05 Gy, for no enema and enema fraction, respectively). No significant rectal volume differences nor DVH parameter differences were observed according the applicator type. CONCLUSIONS: Our rectal enemas protocol prior to HDR-BT was ineffective in significantly modifying rectal DVH parameters. No differences were observed according to the type of applicator used.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the number of diabetic foot units (DFUs) in Spain, the specialists working in them, and the population covered by them. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Spanish Group on the Diabetic Foot (SGDF) prepared and agreed a questionnaire based on the recommendations of the 2011 International Consensus on the Diabetic Foot (ICDF). From October to December 2012, the questionnaire was sent to members of three scientific societies formed by professionals involved in the care of patients with diabetes mellitus. Population coverage of the responding centers and DFUs was estimated using the 2012 population census. RESULTS: Seventy five questionnaires were received, 64 of them from general hospitals, which accounted for 13% of the general hospitals of the National Health System. It was calculated that they provided coverage to 43% of the population. Thirty four centers answered that they had a DFU. Specialized diabetic foot care was only provided to 25% of the population. The number of different professionals working at diabetic foot units was 6.3±2.7. Classification of DFUs based on their complexity was as follows: 5 basic units (14.7%), 20 intermediate units (58.8%), and 9 excellence units (26.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The number of DFUs reported in this study in Spain is low, and allow for foot care of only one out of every four patients with diabetes. Spanish health system needs to improve diabetic foot care by creating new DFUs and improving the existing ones.