Plasma rico en plaquetas: ¿mito o realidad? / Platelet-rich plasma: myth or reality?

El plasma rico en plaquetas (PRP) es un preparado con fines terapéuticos cada vez más aceptado en diversas patologías musculoesqueléticas, debido a su teórico potencial para reparar tejidos con baja capacidad curativa. Se han realizado diversos ensayos clínicos aleatorizados que investigan la capacidad del PRP para la reparación de tendones, ligamentos, músculos y cartílago. Hasta la fecha existe evidencia 1A que apoya su uso para la epicondilitis lateral, la osteoartritis de rodilla, la fascitis plantar y tendinopatías del manguito rotador, y evidencia 1B en la tendinopatía del tendón rotuliano y la osteoartritis de cadera. Estudios retrospectivos, de cohortes y series de casos describen resultados prometedores del PRP para el tratamiento de otras patologías musculoesqueléticas. Al ser sus efectos secundarios menores que los de los grupos controles hacen que sea un tratamiento considerado como prácticamente inocuo y cada vez más usado. Son necesarios nuevos ensayos clínicos aleatorizados para establecer futuras indicaciones y confirmar su efectividad y seguridad

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a preparation for therapeutic purposes that is increasingly accepted for various musculoskeletal disorders, due to its theoretical potential to repair tissues with poor healing capacity. Several randomised clinical trials have investigated the capacity of PRP to repair tendons, ligaments, muscles and cartilage, and to date there is level 1a evidence to support its use for lateral epicondylitis, osteoarthritis of the knee, plantar fasciitis and rotator cuff tendinopathy; and level 1b for patellar tendinopathy and osteoarthritis of the hip. Retrospective cohort studies and case series describe promising results with PRP for treating other musculoskeletal disorders. Since its side effects are fewer than those of the control groups, the treatment is considered practically harmless and is being increasingly used. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to establish future indications, and to confirm effectiveness and safety

Platelet-rich plasma: myth or reality? / Plasma rico en plaquetas: ¿mito o realidad?

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a preparation for therapeutic purposes that is increasingly accepted for various musculoskeletal disorders, due to its theoretical potential to repair tissues with poor healing capacity. Several randomised clinical trials have investigated the capacity of PRP to repair tendons, ligaments, muscles and cartilage, and to date there is level 1a evidence to support its use for lateral epicondylitis, osteoarthritis of the knee, plantar fasciitis and rotator cuff tendinopathy; and level 1b for patellar tendinopathy and osteoarthritis of the hip. Retrospective cohort studies and case series describe promising results with PRP for treating other musculoskeletal disorders. Since its side effects are fewer than those of the control groups, the treatment is considered practically harmless and is being increasingly used. Further randomised clinical trials are necessary to establish future indications, and to confirm effectiveness and safety.

Fractura bilateral simultánea del piramidal / Simultaneous bilateral triquetrum bone fracture

No disponible

Isquemia intestinal secundaria a avulsión de los vasos mesentéricos en traumatismo abdominal / Intestinal ischemia secondary to mesenteric vessel avulsion in abdominal trauma

No disponible

Abordaje intervencionista del síndrome facetario lumbar: denervación con radiofrecuencia / Interventional approach for lumbar facet syndrome: radio frequency denervation

Lumbar pain is a common and frequent chronic condition. It is estimated that facet joint pain represents 15-31% of all consultations for low back pain. In suspected facet joint pain, it is recommended to perform nerve blocks to establish the diagnosis. Percutaneous continuous radiofrequency is the most effective treatment to date. We describe the current evidence on the minimally invasive treatment of lumbar facet syndrome and our experience with image guidance with CT and fluoroscopy by means of rhizolysis of the medial branch of the dorsal primary ramus of the spinal nerve.

El dolor lumbar es una entidad común y frecuente crónica. Se estima que el dolor de causa articular facetaria representa el 15-31% de todas las consultas por dolor lumbar. En sospecha de dolor articular facetario se recomienda realización de bloqueos nerviosos para establecer el diagnóstico. La radiofrecuencia continua percutánea es el tratamiento más efectivo hasta la fecha. Se describe la evidencia actual en el tratamiento mínimamente invasivo del síndrome facetario lumbar y nuestra experiencia con las guías de imagen con TC y fluoroscopía mediante rizolisis de la rama medial del ramo primario dorsal del nervio espinal.

Neumomediastino secundario a traumatismo torácico por balón de fútbol / No disponible

No disponible

Comparación de las técnicas de inyección ecográfica y radioscópica en artro-TC y artro-RM de cadera / Comparison of ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance for injection in CT arthrography and MR arthrography of the hip

Objetivo. Valorar la utilidad de la inyección ecoguiada en la artro-TC y artro-RM de cadera en comparación con la guía radioscópica. Material y métodos. Se revisaron los estudios de artro-RM y artro-TC realizados en el periodo de 1 año entre el 1 de octubre de 2014 y el 1 de octubre de 2015. Se registraron 32 estudios con guía ecográfica y 26 con guía radioscópica, que conformaron dos muestras en las que se valoraron los siguientes parámetros: presencia de una adecuada cantidad de contraste intraarticular, existencia de extravasado o inyección de contraste en partes blandas (presencia de contraste en el psoas o en el resto de partes blandas) y burbujas de gas intraarticular. Posteriormente se realizó un análisis estadístico con el programa SPSS V. 20, en el que se compararon los valores de ambas técnicas mediante la prueba de la ji al cuadrado de Pearson. Resultados. El 56,3% de las inyecciones con ecografía mostraron medio de contraste en las partes blandas, con un 6,3% de procedimientos no válidos para el diagnóstico. Con radioscopia existió extravasado en el 53,8%, con un 3,8% no válido para el diagnóstico. El 21,9% de los estudios con ecografía presentaron gas intraarticular, comparado con el 38,5% en radioscopia. Las diferencias entre los valores de ambas muestras no fueron estadísticamente significativas (p>0,05 en todos los parámetros). Conclusiones. Nuestro estudio demuestra la utilidad de la ecografía como una técnica tan válida como la radioscopia, con la gran ventaja conocida de la ausencia de radiación ionizante (AU)

Objective. To evaluate the usefulness of ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided injection in CT arthrography and MR arthrography. Material and methods. We reviewed all CT arthrography and MR arthrography studies done at our center between October 1, 2014 and October 1, 2015. We analyzed 32 studies: 26 with fluoroscopic guidance and 6 with ultrasound guidance. We compared the two techniques on the following parameters: presence of sufficient contrast material in the joint, extravasation or injection of contrast material in the soft tissues (presence of contrast material in the psoas or other soft tissues), and intra-articular gas bubbles. We used SPSS V. 20 to compare the techniques with Pearson's chi-square tests. Results. Contrast material was observed in soft tissues in 56.3% of ultrasound-guided injections, making 6.3% of the procedures invalid for diagnostic purposes. Extravasation of contrast material was observed in 53.8% of fluoroscopy-guided procedures, making 3.8% invalid for diagnostic purposes. Intra-articular gas was observed in 21.9% of ultrasound-guided studies and in 38.5% of fluoroscopy-guided studies. None of the differences between techniques were statistically significant at p<0.05. Conclusions. Our study shows that ultrasound is as useful as fluoroscopy for injecting contrast material for CT arthroscopy and MR arthroscopy; ultrasound has the advantage of not using ionizing radiation (AU)

Comparison of ultrasound and fluoroscopic guidance for injection in CT arthrography and MR arthrography of the hip. / Comparación de las técnicas de inyección ecográfica y radioscópica en artro-TC y artro-RM de cadera.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided injection in CT arthrography and MR arthrography. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We reviewed all CT arthrography and MR arthrography studies done at our center between October 1, 2014 and October 1, 2015. We analyzed 32 studies: 26 with fluoroscopic guidance and 6 with ultrasound guidance. We compared the two techniques on the following parameters: presence of sufficient contrast material in the joint, extravasation or injection of contrast material in the soft tissues (presence of contrast material in the psoas or other soft tissues), and intra-articular gas bubbles. We used SPSS V. 20 to compare the techniques with Pearson's chi-square tests. RESULTS: Contrast material was observed in soft tissues in 56.3% of ultrasound-guided injections, making 6.3% of the procedures invalid for diagnostic purposes. Extravasation of contrast material was observed in 53.8% of fluoroscopy-guided procedures, making 3.8% invalid for diagnostic purposes. Intra-articular gas was observed in 21.9% of ultrasound-guided studies and in 38.5% of fluoroscopy-guided studies. None of the differences between techniques were statistically significant at p<0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that ultrasound is as useful as fluoroscopy for injecting contrast material for CT arthroscopy and MR arthroscopy; ultrasound has the advantage of not using ionizing radiation.

Extravasación subaracnoidea de contraste intravenoso tras arteriografía en paciente con tromboembolismo pulmonar agudo / Subarachnoid extravasation of intravenous contrast after arteriography in a patient with acute pulmonary thromboembolism

No disponible