[Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines: evidence and practice-oriented approach]. / Allergische Reaktionen auf COVID-19-Impfstoffe ­ Evidenz und praxisorientiertes Vorgehen.

Less than a year after the first detection of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), vaccines have been approved for routine use in numerous countries and have already been used in mass vaccination programs. Vaccines include the mRNA BNT162b2 and mRNA 1273. Allergic reactions and anaphylaxis account for a substantial proportion of the adverse reactions to these vaccines observed to date, but overall they are rare. The incidence of anaphylaxis in the context of SARS-CoV­2 vaccination with the mRNA vaccines appears to be approximately 10-fold higher than with previous vaccines, at approximately 1 per 100,000 vaccine injections. One focus of the present article is a systematic review of the components of mRNA vaccines against " coronavirus disease 2019 " (COVID-19). Differences from established vaccines are addressed and the allergic potential of liposomes, polyethylene glycol, tromethamine/trometamol, and mRNA are discussed. Another focus is on the clinical presentation and course of allergic reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines. This is followed by a discussion of the therapeutic approach to anaphylactic reactions, as well as the drugs and medical supplies required to treat them. It is important to note that any vaccinee may be affected by anaphylaxis, regardless of whether or not allergic diseases are already known. Therefore, every vaccination site and every vaccinator must be prepared to recognize and treat severe allergic reactions.

Management of shortened dental arches and periodontal health: 5-year results of a randomised trial.

In a multicentre randomised trial (German Research Association, grants DFG WA 831/2-1 to 2-6, WO 677/2-1.1 to 2-2.1.; controlled-trials.com ISRCTN97265367), patients with complete molar loss in one jaw received either a partial removable dental prosthesis (PRDP) with precision attachments or treatment according to the SDA concept aiming at pre-molar occlusion. The objective of this current analysis was to evaluate the influence of different treatments on periodontal health. Linear mixed regression models were fitted to quantify the differences between the treatment groups. The assessment at 5 years encompassed 59 patients (PRDP group) and 46 patients (SDA group). For the distal measuring sites of the posterior-most teeth of the study jaw, significant differences were found for the plaque index according to Silness and Löe, vertical clinical attachment loss (CAL-V), probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing. These differences were small and showed a slightly more unfavourable course in the PRDP group. With CAL-V and PPD, significant differences were also found for the study jaw as a whole. For CAL-V, the estimated group differences over 5 years amounted to 0.27 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.48; P = 0.016) for the study jaw and 0.25 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.45; P = 0.014) for the distal sites of the posterior-most teeth. The respective values for PPD were 0.22 mm (95% CI 0.03; 0.41; P = 0.023) and 0.32 mm (95% CI 0.13; 0.5; P = 0.001). It can be concluded that even in a well-maintained.patient group statistically significant although minor detrimental effects of PRDPs on periodontal health are measurable.

[Endoscopic submucosal dissection]. / Endoskopische Submukosadissektion.

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) was developed in Japan but has now also become permanently established in various centers in Europe. ESD is an endoscopic en bloc mucosal resection technique for the treatment of early cancers with a diameter >1 cm and also superficial precancerous lesions, which could only be removed unsatisfactorily in several fragments or with uncertain lateral safety margins using previous loop excision procedures. Using ESD a lesion is excised after circular marking and generous submucosal injection with a safety margin of approximately 5 mm and subsequently resected at the level of the submucosa with a 1-3 mm short diathermic knife. ESD requires high technical skills in interventional endoscopy and is more time-consuming than snare resection techniques. However, numerous studies have shown a clear superiority for ESD with respect to the R0 resection rate and the local recurrence rate. The present article gives a current review of the use of ESD in the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract and demonstrates perspectives of the procedure.

Application of ANAES guidelines for colonoscopy in France: a practical survey.

OBJECTIVES: In 2004, the French health authorities published guidelines on the indications for colonoscopy. However, no study has evaluated the awareness of healthcare practitioners of these guidelines. The aim of this study was to determine the level of awareness of the ANAES guidelines among French gastroenterologists. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire comprising 20 multiple choice questions (MCQ) was presented to a group of 79 gastroenterologists between February and June in 2008. The questions covered screening tests for colon cancer (one question), endoscopic mucosal resection (two questions) and the ANAES guidelines (17 questions). According to the number of colonoscopies performed per year (less than 100, 100-500, more than 500), the answers to these questions were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Among the practitioners carrying out less than 100, 100-500 and more than 500 colonoscopies per year, the guidelines for colon cancer screening were known by 33, 50 and 56%, respectively, the quality criteria for endoscopic mucosal resection by 0, 0 and 3.7%, respectively, and the ANAES guideline indications for colonoscopy by 34.3, 51.2 and 48.9%, respectively (P<0.001). The ANAES guidelines were significantly better known by practitioners who were performing more than 100 colonoscopies per year, while the indications for control colonoscopy were less often correctly anticipated. No differences were found concerning postponed indications. CONCLUSION: The ANAES guidelines consists of the following elements: (1) awareness of the ANAES guidelines is poor, with control colonoscopy being correctly anticipated in just over a third of the gastroenterologists; (2) performing more than 100 colonoscopies per year improves knowledge of the ANAES guidelines; and (3) the ANAES guidelines need to be simplified and should be covered by continuing medical education.

Laparoscopy-assisted transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Preliminary experience and technique description.

INTRODUCTION: Common bile duct lithiasis after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or upper gastrointestinal stenosis has become a challenging problem nowadays, especially as obesity surgery is increasing. In this study, we assess the feasibility and performance of laparoscopy-assisted transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (LAERCP) and describe its technique. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospectively collected database of consecutive patients undergoing a LAERCP between February 2014 and May 2015 was performed at a single institution. Indications were common bile duct lithiasis associated with acute or past episodes of cholangitis and pancreatitis. Endoscopic access to the gastric remnant was obtained laparoscopically. RESULTS: In total 5 cases were identified. Four of them had undergone a RYGB and one of them presented a benign esophageal peptic stenosis, not allowing peroral gastric access. Biliary cannulation using LAERCP associated with sphincterotomy and stone extraction was successfully achieved in all patients. Mean duration of the entire procedure was 134minutes (range: 66-200min). No early major complications were observed and the mean postoperative hospital stay was 4 days (range: 2-5 days). CONCLUSIONS: LAERCP is a safe and successful procedure for the treatment of common bile duct lithiasis when conventional biliary access is not feasible, notably after RYGB. Larger trials still need to be performed to evaluate efficacy, technical success, and complications related to this technique.

The randomized shortened dental arch study: 5-year maintenance.

The scientific evidence concerning prosthodontic care for the shortened dental arch (SDA) is sparse. This randomized multicenter study aimed to compare two common treatment options: removable partial dental prostheses (RPDPs) for molar replacement vs. no replacement (SDA). One of the hypotheses was that the follow-up treatment differs between patients with RPDPs and patients with SDAs during the 5-year follow-up period. Two hundred and fifteen patients with complete molar loss in one jaw were included in the study. Molars were either replaced by RPDPs or not replaced according to the SDA concept. A mean number of 4.2 (RPDP) and 2.8 (SDA) treatments for biological or technical reasons occurred during the 5-year observation time per patient. Concerning the biological aspect, no significant differences between the groups could be shown, whereas treatment arising from technical reasons was significantly more frequent for the RPDP group. When the severity of treatment was analyzed, a change over time was evident. When, at baseline, only follow-up treatment with minimal effort is required, over time there is a continuous increase to moderate and extensive effort observed for both groups (Controlled-trials.com number ISRCTN97265367).

The randomized shortened dental arch study: tooth loss.

The evidence concerning the management of shortened dental arch (SDA) cases is sparse. This multi-center study was aimed at generating data on outcomes and survival rates for two common treatments, removable dental prostheses (RDP) for molar replacement or no replacement (SDA). The hypothesis was that the treatments lead to different incidences of tooth loss. We included 215 patients with complete molar loss in one jaw. Molars were either replaced by RDP or not replaced, according to the SDA concept. First tooth loss after treatment was the primary outcome measure. This event occurred in 13 patients in the RDP group and nine patients in the SDA group. The respective Kaplan-Meier survival rates at 38 months were 0.83 (95% CI: 0.74-0.91) in the RDP group and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.95) in the SDA group, the difference being non-significant.