A Randomized Controlled Trial Using Epidural Analgesia for Pain Relief After Lumbar Interlaminar Decompressive Spine Surgery: The RAPID trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, double-blind randomized controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: If an intraoperative single bolus of epidural bupivacaine can result in less postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Adequate postoperative pain management following lumbar spinal decompression surgery is important, as it will lead to early mobilization, less complications, and a shorter hospital stay. Opioid consumption should be limited due to their frequently accompanied side effects and their addictive nature. During the final phase of lumbar decompression surgery, the epidural space becomes easily accessible. This might be an ideal moment for surgeons to administer an epidural bolus of analgesia as a safe and effective method for postoperative pain relief. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this trial, we compared a single intraoperative bolus of epidural analgesia using bupivacaine 0.25% to placebo (NaCl 0.9%) and its effect on postoperative pain following lumbar spinal decompression surgery. The primary outcome was the difference in Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale between the intervention and placebo groups during the first 48 hours after surgery. RESULTS: Both the intervention group and the placebo group consisted of 20 randomized patients (N=40). Statistically significant lower mean Numeric (Pain) Rating Scale pain scores were observed in the intervention group in comparison with the control group (main effect group: -2.35±0.77, P =0.004). The average pain score was lower in the intervention group at all postoperative time points. No study-related complications occurred. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial shows that administrating a bolus of intraoperative epidural bupivacaine is a safe and effective method for reducing early postoperative pain following lumbar decompression surgery.

Advocating uniformity in spine surgery: a practical disease-specific guideline for trial-based economic evaluations.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the availability of general and national guidelines for the conduct and reporting of economic evaluations, there is heterogeneity in economic evolutions concerning spine surgery. This is partly the result of differing levels of adherence to the existing guidelines and the lack of disease-specific recommendations for economic evaluations. The extensive heterogeneity in study design, follow-up duration and outcome measurements limit the comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery. This study has three objectives: (1) to create disease-specific recommendations for the design and conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery, (2) to define recommendations for reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery as a complement to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklist and (3) to discuss methodological challenges and defining the need for future research. DESIGN: A modified Delphi method according to the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method. SETTING: A four-step process was followed to create and validate disease-specific statements and recommendations for the conduct and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. Consensus was defined as >75% agreement. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 20 experts were included in the expert group. Validation of the final recommendations was obtained in a Delphi panel, which consisted of 40 researchers in the field who were not included in the expert group. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure is a set of recommendations for the conduct and reporting, as a complement to the CHEERS 2022 checklist, of economic evaluations in spine surgery. RESULTS: A total of 31 recommendations are made. The Delphi panel confirmed consensus on all of the recommendations in the proposed guideline. CONCLUSION: This study provides an accessible and practical guideline for the conduct of trial-based economic evaluations in spine surgery. This disease-specific guideline is a complement to existing guidelines, and should aid in reaching uniformity and comparability.

A systematic review comparing the cost-effectiveness of the direct anterior, posterior, and straight lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty.

Background: Total hip arthroplasty is a reliable option to treat osteoarthritis. It reduces pain, increases quality of life, and restores function. The direct anterior approach (DAA), posterior approach (PA), and straight lateral approach (SLA) are mostly used. This systematic review evaluates current literature about costs and cost-effectiveness of DAA, PA, and SLA. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) systematic search, registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42021237427), was conducted of databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or comparative cohort studies reporting or comparing costs or cost-effectiveness of either approach as the primary outcome. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed. For comparison, all costs were converted to American Dollars (reference year 2016). Results: Six systematic review studies were included. RoB ranged from low to high, the level of evidence ranged from 2 to 4, and methodological quality was moderate. Costs ranged from $5313.85 to $15 859.00 (direct) and $1921.00 to $6364.30 (indirect) in DAA. From $5158.46 to $12 344.47 (direct) to $2265.70 to $5566.01 (indirect) for PA and from $3265.62 to $8501.81 (direct) and $2280.16 (indirect) for SLA. Due to heterogeneity of included costs, they were not directly comparable. Solid data about cost-effectiveness cannot be presented. Conclusions: Due to limited and heterogenous evidence about costs and cost-effectiveness, the effect of these in surgical approach is unknown. Further well-powered research to make undisputed conclusions is needed.

Methodology of economic evaluations in spine surgery: a systematic review and qualitative assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The present study is a systematic review conducted as part of a methodological approach to develop evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the methodology and quality of currently available clinical cost-effectiveness studies in spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EconLit and The National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database were searched through 8 December 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies were included if they met all of the following eligibility criteria: (1) spine surgery, (2) the study cost-effectiveness and (3) clinical study. Model-based studies were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The following data items were extracted and evaluated: pathology, number of participants, intervention(s), year, country, study design, time horizon, comparator(s), utility measurement, effectivity measurement, costs measured, perspective, main result and study quality. RESULTS: 130 economic evaluations were included. Seventy-four of these studies were retrospective studies. The majority of the studies had a time horizon shorter than 2 years. Utility measures varied between the EuroQol 5 dimensions and variations of the Short-Form Health Survey. Effect measures varied widely between Visual Analogue Scale for pain, Neck Disability Index, Oswestry Disability Index, reoperation rates and adverse events. All studies included direct costs from a healthcare perspective. Indirect costs were included in 47 studies. Total Consensus Health Economic Criteria scores ranged from 2 to 18, with a mean score of 12.0 over all 130 studies. CONCLUSIONS: The comparability of economic evaluations in spine surgery is extremely low due to different study designs, follow-up duration and outcome measurements such as utility, effectiveness and costs. This illustrates the need for uniformity in conducting and reporting economic evaluations in spine surgery.

Double-center observational study of minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for sacroiliac joint dysfunction: one-year results.

BACKGROUND: For a substantial part of patients with chronic low back pain, the origin is located in the sacroiliac joint (SIJ). Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is increasingly being implemented as a treatment option in SIJ dysfunction. Despite remaining controversy, evidence continues to increase. This study evaluates the clinical results and safety of MISJF in a double-center consecutive case series in patients with SIJ dysfunction over a one-year observation period. METHODS: SIJ complaints were diagnosed after history taking, physical examination and least a 50% reduction of SIJ pain 30-60 min following image-guided injection. Primary outcome measures were patient reported outcome measurements (PROMs), consisting of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score and EuroQol 5-dimensions 3-levels (EQ-5D-3L). Patients' perspectives on the effects of surgery were collected through questionnaires. Secondary outcome measures were implant positioning and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE's). RESULTS: A total of 29 patients were included. In 44.8% of patients, SIJ dysfunction was of postpartum origin. The mean VAS-pain score improved from 7.83 (± 1.71) to 4.97 (± 2.63) postoperatively (p < 0.001). EQ-5D-3L score improved from 0.266 (± 0.129) to 0.499 (± 0.260) postoperatively (p < 0.001). Opioid consumption decreased from 44.8 to 24.1% postoperatively (p = 0.026). In 13.7% of patients, an (S)AE occurred. CONCLUSION: MISJF appears to be an effective and safe procedure in this cohort. Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and quality of life were observed one-year postoperatively. Future studies should focus on the long-term outcomes to further evaluate the safety and effectiveness of MISJF.

Motion analysis in patients with postpartum sacroiliac joint dysfunction: A cross-sectional case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction are limited in daily life activities such as gait, climbing stairs and rising from a chair. It is well known that individuals with chronic low back pain have impaired balance compared to healthy individuals. This cross-sectional case-control study aims to investigate spatiotemporal parameters, center of pressure and mass, pelvic angles and other joint angles in patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction in comparison with healthy controls. METHODS: Motion analysis existed of three tasks: (1) normal gait, (2) single-leg-stance, and (3) sit-to-stance. Spatiotemporal parameters, center of pressure, pelvic angles and other joint angles were measured using a twelve-camera, three-dimensional motion capture system and ground reaction force platforms. FINDINGS: Thirty subjects were recruited for this study; ten patients, ten matched controls and ten healthy student controls. For gait, patients had a lower cadence, longer double support phase, shorter step length and slower walking speed than controls. For single-leg-stance, patients had a smaller hip angle of the risen leg than controls. Also, variability in center of pressure was larger in patients. For sit-to-stance, the total time to perform the task was almost doubled for patients compared to controls. INTERPRETATION: This study demonstrates that patients with sacroiliac joint dysfunction have an impaired gait, more balance problems during standing and standing up compared to healthy controls. This novel information assists to further comprehend the pathology and disease burden of sacroiliac joint dysfunction, in addition, it may allow us to evaluate the effect of current therapies.

A Systematic Review on Neurological Outcomes for Cervical Degenerative Myelopathy After Anterior Decompression Surgery: Motion Preservation vs Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Although it is well established that surgically treated patients with cervical degenerative myelopathy (CDM) improve irrespective of the anterior decompression technique used, no consensus exists on what technique is superior in terms of neurological recovery. A general concern exists that anterior cervical discectomy with arthroplasty (ACDA) leads to less favorable outcomes in CDM due to microtrauma caused by preserved mobility. It is remarkable that current literature mainly uses pain scores to assess clinical outcomes after anterior decompression surgery, especially considering that pain may not be the most relevant outcome for CDM. This systematic review evaluated the literature concerning neurological outcomes in patients with CDM treated with anterior decompression surgery and assessed by validated myelopathy scores. METHODS: Systematic searches were carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Prospective studies were included when patients with isolated CDM were treated with anterior decompression surgery, and a validated myelopathy outcome score was used. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were included from the 16,032 identified studies. All studies used the modified Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) outcome score and showed improvement for all anterior techniques. The mean improvement in anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) was 4.80 and 3.64 for the modified JOA and JOA outcome scores, respectively. The JOA for ACDA showed a mean improvement of 5.51. The overall quality of the included articles was low to moderate according to the Cochrane tool. CONCLUSION: Neurological recovery of CDM is similar after all anterior decompression techniques, including ACDA when compared with ACDF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The current literature gives no reason to dissuade the use of ACDA in cervical myelopathy.

Minimally Invasive Sacroiliac Joint Fusion vs Conservative Management in Patients With Sacroiliac Joint Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is affected in 14% to 22% in individuals presenting with chronic low back or buttock pain. This percentage is even higher in patients who underwent lumbar fusion surgery: 32% to 42%. Currently, there is no standard treatment or surgical indication for SIJ dysfunction. When patients do not respond well to nonsurgical treatment, minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) seems to be a reasonable option. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature on the effectiveness of MISJF compared to conservative management in patients with SIJ dysfunction. METHODS: A systematic search of health-care databases was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective and retrospective comparative cohort studies that compared MISJF with conservative management. Primary outcome measures were pain, disability, and patient satisfaction measured by patient-reported outcome measures. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, financial benefits, and costs. RESULTS: Two RCTs and one retrospective cohort study were included comparing MISJF and conservative management with regard to pain and disability outcome, encompassing 388 patients (207 conservative and 181 surgical). In a pooled mean difference analysis, MISJF demonstrated greater reduction in visual analog scale-pain score compared to conservative management: -37.03 points (95%CI [-43.91, -30.15], P < 0.001). Moreover, MISJF was associated with a greater reduction in Oswestry Disability Index outcome: -21.14 points (95% CI [-24.93, -17.35], P < 0.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management.001). AEs were low among the study groups and comparable across the included studies. One cost-effectiveness analysis was also included and reported that MISJF is more cost-effective than conservative management. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that MISJF, using cannulated triangular, titanium implants, is more effective and cost-effective than conservative management in reducing pain and disability in patients with SIJ dysfunction. Further well-powered, independent research is needed to improve the overall evidence.

Lumbar spinal stenosis in a patient with complex spinal dysraphism caused by a supplementary midline muscle: A case report.

Background: The clinical tethered cord syndrome (TCS) can become symptomatic during adulthood, known as adult tethered cord syndrome (ATCS). Distinguishing ATCS from neurogenic claudication attributed to lumbar spinal stenosis may pose a clinical challenge. Case Description: A 66-year-old male with an underlying complex occult spinal dysraphism (OSD) presented with new onset of lower back and bilateral leg pain plus neurogenic claudication. Magnetic resonance imaging documented OSD, and lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) attributed to a supplementary midline muscle. Following decompressive surgery for LSS without untethering the ATCS, the patient's symptoms resolved. Conclusion: A patient with OSD and ATCS with LSS due to a supplementary midline muscle presented with new onset of neurogenic claudication. Surgical decompression of the LSS by removing the supplementary midline muscle resolved patients' symptoms.

Evidence-based recommendations for economic evaluations in spine surgery: study protocol for a Delphi consensus.

INTRODUCTION: Considering the rising global healthcare expenses, economic evaluations are more important than ever. Even though the number of studies regarding costs and cost-effectiveness is increasing, the quality of these studies remains relatively low. This is mainly caused by abundant heterogeneity in methods used for determining, calculating and reporting cost data, despite current general guidelines for the conduct of economic evaluations. Disease-specific recommendations for the conduct of economic evaluations in the field of spine surgery, as complement to existing general guidelines, will ameliorate overall research quality, comparability and interpretability and thus, the overall quality. We aim to provide expert-based recommendations for the design, conduct, and reporting of economic evaluations in spine surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A modified Delphi study will be conducted to formulate expert-based recommendations. The following steps will be taken:(1) The conduct of a systematic review to identify relevant publications and identify relevant authors. Formation of an expert group and a Delphi-panel. (2) Drafting of statements based on articles included in the systematic literature review. Validation of drafted statements by the expert group. Step 2 can be repeated up to three times, statements can be discarded and adjusted in these rounds. Statements with more than 75% agreement will be accepted as consensus statements. (3) Validation of statements by the Delphi-panel. (4) Final recommendations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The underlying work is based on existing literature and published data and does not include participation of patients, and thus does not require ethical review approval. The final recommendations are intended for (clinical) researchers in the field of cost-effectiveness in spine surgery. The Delphi method ensures that the final output reflects the opinions of international participants and gives insight in the adherence level to the recommendations. The aim is to reach uniformity in design, conduct and reporting of these studies, as is currently lacking. This will provide a solid basis to determine cost-effectiveness of spine surgeries and consequently aid to limit the rising healthcare costs. The findings of this study and the final recommendations will be disseminated in conferences and seminars and will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial on the effect of local analgesia for pain relief after minimal invasive sacroiliac joint fusion: the ARTEMIS study.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic lower back pain is a common report in the general population. A dysfunctional sacroiliac joint (SIJ) is estimated to be responsible for one in five patients with lower back pain. Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion (MISJF) is a surgical procedure to treat SIJ dysfunction. During the procedure, the SIJ is stabilised by implants inserted percutaneously under fluoroscopy guidance. Postoperatively, patients often report a lot of pain, which contributes to patients taking high doses of painkillers (opioids for example,) and preventing early mobilisation. In several orthopaedic procedures, intraoperative infiltration of the wound bed results in decreased consumption of analgesics, earlier mobilisation and shorter hospitalisation time. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with analgesia in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a two-centre, prospective, double-blind, randomised controlled trial to determine whether SIJ infiltration with 1.5-5 cc bupivacaine 0.50% is superior to 1.5-5 cc placebo (NaCl 0.9%) in reducing postoperative pain in patients after MISJF, and to determine whether bupivacaine significantly reduces opioid use in the direct postoperative period. Patients will be randomised with 1:1 allocation for either bupivacaine (intervention) or placebo SIJ infiltration. Postoperative pain will be measured by the Visual Analogue Scale pain score at entry and exit recovery, 2, 4, 6, 24 and 48 hours postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is the first trial that investigates the effectiveness of intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% in reducing postoperative pain after MISJF. If intraoperative SIJ infiltration with bupivacaine 0.50% proves to be effective, this might have important clinical implications, such as postoperative analgesics (opioids for example,) consumption, earlier mobilisation and potentially shorter hospitalisation time. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL9151.

Cost-effectiveness of open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF) versus minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MITLIF): a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The number of performed instrumented lumbar spine surgeries and associated health-care-related costs has increased over the last decades, and will increase further in the future. With the consistent growth of health-care-related costs, cost-effectiveness of surgical techniques is of major relevance. Common indications for instrumented lumbar spine surgery are spondylolisthesis and degenerative disease. A commonly used technique is the open transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (OTLIF). Nowadays, there is an increasing interest in the minimally invasive variation of this technique (minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion [MITLIF]). Currently available literature describes that MITLIF has comparable or even better clinical results compared to OTLIF. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF and OTLIF is important considering the growing health-care related costs, although no consensus has been reached regarding the most cost-effective technique. In this systematic review, previous literature concerning costs and cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was compared with MITLIF in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. Furthermore, methodological quality of included studies was assessed. PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the current literature on cost-effectiveness of OTLIF compared MITLIF to in patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis or degenerative disease. STUDY DESIGN: This study is a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. STUDY SAMPLE: Clinical studies reporting costs or cost-effectiveness for either OTLIF or MITLIF in patients with spondylolisthesis, lumbar instability, or degenerative disease were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The following data items were evaluated: study design, study population, utility measurement tool, gained quality adjusted life years (QALYs), cost sources, health care and societal perspective costs, total costs, costs per QALY (cost-effectiveness) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using databases PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, Cochrane, Clinical Trials, Current Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, NHS Centre for Review and Dissemination, Econlit and Web of Science on studies reporting OTLIF or MITLIF, spondylolisthesis or lumbar instability or degenerative disease, and costs. Relevant studies were selected and reviewed independently by two authors. For comparison, all costs were converted to American dollars with the reference year 2018. RESULTS: After duplicate removal, a total of 892 studies were identified. Eventually, 32 studies were included. Nine studies compared OTLIF and MITLIF directly. All studies mentioned health care perspective costs. Seven studies mentioned societal perspective costs. Cost-effectiveness of OTLIF was mentioned in five studies, ranging from $47,303/QALY to $218,766/QALY. Cost-effectiveness of MITLIF was mentioned in one study, $121,105/QALY. Meta-analysis of hospital perspective costs showed a significant overall effect in favor of MITLIF, with a mean difference of $2,650. There was great heterogeneity in health care and societal perspective costs due to different in-, and exclusion factors, baseline characteristics, and calculation methods. Overall quality of studies was low. CONCLUSIONS: OTLIF and MITLIF appear to be expensive interventions when using a threshold of $50,000/QALY. Results of this study and previous literature suggest that MITLIF is more cost-effective compared to OTLIF. Considering the increase in health care costs of instrumented spine surgery, cost-effectiveness could be one of the factors in surgical decision-making. Prospective randomized studies directly comparing cost-effectiveness of OTLIF and MITLIF from both hospital and societal perspectives are needed to obtain higher level of evidence.

Intraoperative epidural analgesia for pain relief after lumbar decompressive spine surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: During lumbar decompressive spine surgery, the epidural space is easily accessible. This intraoperative situation allows surgeons to apply an epidural bolus of analgesia at the end of the surgical procedure. In literature, several papers about the methods and effectiveness of delivering local analgesia during lumbar decompressive spine surgery have been published. Research question: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to summaries the current literature on the effectiveness and safety of intraoperative epidural analgesia in lumbar decompressive surgery, delivered as a bolus. Material and method: A systematic search was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials or comparative cohort studies of patients aged 18 years or older who underwent decompressive lumbar spine surgery. Nonsteroidal epidural analgesia had to be administered as a bolus, intraoperatively, as an adjunct to standard analgesia therapy. Primary outcome measures were reduction in postoperative pain scores, analgesics consumption and length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were adverse events. Results: Eight studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative epidural analgesia were included. Seven studies reported statistically significant reductions in postoperative VAS-pain scores. Six studies reported a statistically significant decrease in postoperative analgesics consumption. Four studies reported on the length of hospital stay, with no statistically significant difference between study groups. Discussion and conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that additional intraoperative epidural nonsteroidal analgesia, delivered as a bolus, can reduce postoperative pain and postoperative analgesics consumption in patients undergoing decompressive spinal surgery. Further well-powered research is needed to bolster the evidence.

Unexpected prolapse of the anterior leaflet during saline testing in mitral valve repair.

OBJECTIVES: Saline testing is used in mitral valve (MV) surgery to evaluate the repair intra-operatively. Sometimes, saline testing shows a prolapse of the anterior leaflet, not seen on preoperative echocardiography. Our objective was to investigate the incidence, predisposing factors and consequences of this phenomenon. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive patients undergoing surgery for posterior leaflet prolapse between 2013 and 2017. All data, including intraoperative video recordings of the repair and saline testing, were collected prospectively. RESULTS: Isolated posterior leaflet repair was performed in 91 patients. In 17 patients (18.7%), saline testing showed an unexpected anterior leaflet prolapse. Patients with unexpected prolapse presented with higher body mass index (BMI) compared to the reference group (27.5 ± 2.3 vs 25.0 ± 4.2, P = 0.01). Binomial logistic regression analysis showed BMI, surgical approach, number of prolapsing segments, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end systolic diameter and left atrial diameter to be predictive for unexpected anterior leaflet prolapse. In patients with unexpected anterior leaflet prolapse, no adequate saline testing was possible and repair was accomplished based on correction of the prolapse as seen on a preoperative echocardiogram. In both groups, 100% repair rate was achieved. Predischarge mitral regurgitation grading showed mild or less mitral regurgitation in all the patients in the unexpected prolapse group in comparison with 98.6% of patients in the reference group. CONCLUSIONS: When saline testing shows an unexpected prolapse of the anterior leaflet, not present on preoperative echocardiography, no additional surgical techniques should be performed in order to achieve an excellent postoperative result. Further research is warranted to predict unexpected anterior leaflet prolapse preoperatively.

Optimisation of specialty malt volatile analysis by headspace solid-phase microextraction in combination with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry.

The objective of this study was to develop a technique for analysing 14 flavour components, relevant for specialty malts. Therefore, a method was developed for the analysis of these components in dry ground malt using headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. A procedure was optimised for the optimal amount of sample, fibre selection, extraction temperature and extraction time. Afterwards, the method was calibrated and validated by the quantification of the specialty malt flavour components in a colour, a caramel and a roasted malt.

Trypanocidal activity of 1,2,3,4-Tetrahydrocarbazoles

Uma nova série de tetrahidrocarbazois di-substituidos e sua atividade tripanomicida foi avaliada quanto à sua habilidade para lisar formas epimastigotas de T. cruzi marcadas com trítio. Os doze compostos examinados nestas séries mostraram-se ativos