A prospective cohort study: platelet-rich plasma combined with carpal tunnel release treating carpal tunnel syndrome.

BACKGROUND: PRP injection was proved to promote the health condition of individuals with mild to moderate Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS). However, carpal tunnel release (CTR) was still a necessary treatment for individuals with moderate and severe CTS. METHODS: To explore whether adjuvant PRP treatment would improve the prognosis while using CTR, we included 82 patients in this study. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS), Boston carpal tunnel syndrome questionnaire-symptom severity scale (BCTQ-SSS), Boston carpal tunnel syndrome questionnaire-functional status scale (BCTQ-FSS), and grip strength were used to examine the patient's symptoms and function. RESULTS: CTR combined with PRP treatment improved the VAS (1.9 ± 0.5 versus 1.4 ± 0.4, P < .05), BCTQ-SSS (1.8 ± 0.4versus 1.5 ± 0.3, P < .05) and BCTQ-FSS (1.8 ± 0.5 versus 1.4 ± 0.6, P < .05) in patients with moderate symptoms within one month after surgery. At the same time, it does not show any advantages in treating individuals with severe carpal tunnel syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: PRP does not affect long-term prognosis while increasing the surgery cost. To conclude, PRP as an adjuvant treatment of CTR has limited effect. Considering the additional financial burden on patients, CTR combined with PRP should be cautious in CTS treatment.

Effect of electro-acupuncture stimulation of Ximen (PC4) and Neiguan (PC6) on remifentanil-induced breakthrough pain following thoracal esophagectomy.

The clinical analgesic effect of electro-acupuncture (EA) stimulation (EAS) on breakthrough pain induced by remifentanil in patients undergoing radical thoracic esophagectomy, and the mechanisms were assessed. Sixty patients (ASAIII) scheduled for elective radical esophagectomy were randomized into three groups: group A (control) receiving a general anesthesia only; group B (sham) given EA needles at PC4 (Ximen) and PC6 (Neiguan) but no stimulation; and group C (EAS) electrically given EAS of the ipsilateral PC4 and PC6 throughout the surgery. The EAS consisting of a disperse-dense wave with a low frequency of 2 Hz and a high frequency of 20 Hz, was performed 30 min prior to induction of general anesthesia and continued through the surgery. At the emergence, sufentanil infusion was given for postoperative analgesia with loading dose of 7.5 µg, followed by a continuous infusion of 2.25 µg/h. The patient self-administration of sufentanil was 0.75 µg with a lockout of 15 min as needed. Additional breakthrough pain was treated with dezocine (5 mg) intravenously at the patient's request. Blood samples were collected before (T1), 2 h (T2), 24 h (T3), and 48 h (T4) after operation to measure the plasma ß-EP, PGE2, and 5-HT. The operative time, the total dose of sufentanil and the dose of self-administration, and the rescue doses of dezocine were recorded. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores at 2, 12, 24 and 48 h postoperatively and the incidence of apnea and severe hypotension were recorded. The results showed that the gender, age, weight, operative time and remifentanil consumption were comparable among 3 groups. Patients in EAS group had the lowest VAS scores postoperatively among the three groups (P<0.05). The total dose of sufentanil was 115±6.0 µg in EAS group, significantly lower than that in control (134.3±5.9 µg) and sham (133.5±7.0 µg) groups. Similarly, the rescue dose of dezocine was the least in EAS group (P<0.05) among the three groups. Plasma ß-EP levels in EAS group at T3 (176.90±45.73) and T4 (162.96±35.00 pg/mL) were significantly higher than those in control (132.33±36.75 and 128.79±41.24 pg/mL) and sham (136.56±45.80 and 129.85±36.14 pg/mL) groups, P<0.05 for all. EAS could decrease the release of PGE2. Plasma PGE2 levels in EAS group at T2 and T3 (41±5 and 40±5 pg/mL respectively) were significantly lower than those in control (64±5 and 62±7 pg/mL) and sham (66±6 and 62±6 pg/mL) groups. Plasma 5-HT levels in EAS group at T2 (133.66±40.85) and T3 (154.66±52.49 ng/mL) were significantly lower than those in control (168.33±56.94 and 225.28±82.03) and sham (164.54±47.53 and 217.74±76.45 ng/mL) groups. For intra-group comparison, plasma 5-HT and PGE2 levels in control and sham groups at T2 and T3, and ß-EP in EAS group at T3 and T4 were significantly higher than those at T1 (P<0.05); PGE2 and 5-HT levels in EAS group showed no significant difference among the different time points (P>0.05). No apnea or severe hypotension was observed in any group. It was concluded that intraoperative ipsilateral EAS at PC4 and PC6 provides effective postoperative analgesia for patients undergoing radical esophagectomy with remifentanil anesthesia and significantly decrease requirement for parental narcotics. The underlying mechanism may be related to stimulation of the release of endogenous ß-EP and inhibition of inflammatory mediators (5-HT and PGE2).

Comparative study of contrast-enhanced ultrasound qualitative and quantitative analysis for identifying benign and malignant breast tumor lumps.

BACKGROUND: To compare the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) qualitative and quantitative analysis in the identification of breast tumor lumps. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative indicators of CEUS for 73 cases of breast tumor lumps were retrospectively analyzed by univariate and multivariate approaches. Logistic regression was applied and ROC curves were drawn for evaluation and comparison. RESULTS: The CEUS qualitative indicator-generated regression equation contained three indicators, namely enhanced homogeneity, diameter line expansion and peak intensity grading, which demonstrated prediction accuracy for benign and malignant breast tumor lumps of 91.8%; the quantitative indicator-generated regression equation only contained one indicator, namely the relative peak intensity, and its prediction accuracy was 61.5%. The corresponding areas under the ROC curve for qualitative and quantitative analyses were 91.3% and 75.7%, respectively, which exhibited a statistically significant difference by the Z test (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The ability of CEUS qualitative analysis to identify breast tumor lumps is better than with quantitative analysis.