Comparison of perineural catheter fixation methods: a volunteer study

Anaesthesia ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. H. Kumar ◽  
D. B. MacLeod ◽  
K. R. Kumar ◽  
N. Ray ◽  
J. Gadsden
2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 49-54
Author(s):  
A.A. Kozhukhov ◽  
◽  
O.V. Unguryanov ◽  
A.D. Rumiantsev ◽  
◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 247275122110192
Author(s):  
Karel Kuik ◽  
Jean Pierre T. F. Ho ◽  
Cornelis Klop ◽  
Maurits H. T. de Ruiter ◽  
Cornelis J. Kleverlaan ◽  
...  

Study Design: Biomechanical in vitro study. Mandibular advancement after sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO) is a common procedure in orthognathic surgery. Several fixation methods are used for stabilization of SSRO. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare a new fixation method (gridplate) with more contemporary applied methods of fixation. Material and Methods: In this study, 50 polyurethane hemimandibles with a prefabricated SSRO were used as specimens. All hemimandibles were advanced by 8 mm and divided into 5 groups with different fixation methods: (A) one 4-hole miniplate with 4 monocortical screws; (B) two 4-hole miniplates with 8 monocortical screws; (C) one 4-hole miniplate with 4 monocortical screws and 1 bicortical screw in the retromolar area (hybrid method); (D) 3 bicortical screws in an inverted-L pattern; and (E) one 8-hole gridplate with 8 monocortical screws. Loads in newtons were recorded at displacements of the mandibular incisive edge at 1 mm, 3 mm and 5 mm. Results: Fixation with 3 bicortical screws and the gridplate presented the most stability, followed by two 4-hole miniplates. Fixation with the hybrid method or the single miniplate showed the least stability. Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the 8-hole gridplate design appears a sufficient fixation method regarding stabilization of SSRO with larger mandibular advancement.


2019 ◽  
Vol 152 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S95-S95
Author(s):  
Victoria Costa ◽  
David Kim ◽  
Abha Goyal ◽  
Bing He ◽  
Yifang Liu ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives Immunohistochemistry especially for biomarkers such as PD-L1 in personalized medicine is increasingly being performed on cell blocks from cytopathology samples. We evaluated the effects of staining cell blocks (CBs) from different cytologic fixatives using four different commercially available PD-L1 antibody clones. Methods PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) using four different commercially available clones was performed on eight cell blocks processed from two different fixatives and also on eight formalin-fixed tissues. The clones used were 22C3 at 1:50 dilution and 1:100 dilution, SP263, SP142, and E1L3N. The cell block (CB) samples contained cells that strongly express PD-L1 and either fixed in CytoLyt (methanol-based fixative, n = 4) or CytoRich (ethanol-formalin-based fixative, n = 4). Formalin-fixed control tissues (tonsillar tissue, n = 4; stomach, n = 4) were also included. Results Expression for PD-L1 was noted on all the CytoRich fixed cell blocks (n = 4) for all four antibody clones, with the intensity and distribution of expression comparable to the formalin fixed tissues (n = 8). However, consistent absence of expression for PD-L1 was noted on all the CytoLyt fixed cell blocks (n = 4) for all four antibody clones. Conclusion The results of this pilot study demonstrate that PD-L1 IHC on cell blocks is feasible. However, there is a need to validate IHC protocols according to specific fixation methods.


Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gareth O. Griffiths ◽  
Richard FitzGerald ◽  
Thomas Jaki ◽  
Andrea Corkhill ◽  
Helen Reynolds ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is an urgent unmet clinical need for the identification of novel therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19. A number of COVID-19 late phase trial platforms have been developed to investigate (often repurposed) drugs both in the UK and globally (e.g. RECOVERY led by the University of Oxford and SOLIDARITY led by WHO). There is a pressing need to investigate novel candidates within early phase trial platforms, from which promising candidates can feed into established later phase platforms. AGILE grew from a UK-wide collaboration to undertake early stage clinical evaluation of candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection to accelerate national and global healthcare interventions. Methods/design AGILE is a seamless phase I/IIa platform study to establish the optimum dose, determine the activity and safety of each candidate and recommend whether it should be evaluated further. Each candidate is evaluated in its own trial, either as an open label single arm healthy volunteer study or in patients, randomising between candidate and control usually in a 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate. Each dose is assessed sequentially for safety usually in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified, efficacy is assessed by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. AGILE is completely flexible in that the core design in the master protocol can be adapted for each candidate based on prior knowledge of the candidate (i.e. population, primary endpoint and sample size can be amended). This information is detailed in each candidate specific trial protocol of the master protocol. Discussion Few approved treatments for COVID-19 are available such as dexamethasone, remdesivir and tocilizumab in hospitalised patients. The AGILE platform aims to rapidly identify new efficacious and safe treatments to help end the current global COVID-19 pandemic. We currently have three candidate specific trials within this platform study that are open to recruitment. Trial registration EudraCT Number: 2020-001860-27 14 March 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746183 19 February 2021 ISRCTN reference: 27106947


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Collins ◽  
Thomas James ◽  
Felicity Southworth ◽  
Louise Davidson ◽  
Natalie Williams ◽  
...  

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document