This study demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements in pain and physical function up to six months following cRFA. A prognostic genicular nerve block using a local anesthetic volume of 1 mL at each injection site and a threshold of ≥ 50% pain relief for subsequent cRFA eligibility did not improve the rate of treatment success.
Background:Providing health services is described as an important moral measure, since its major aim is to ensure the welfare of the people who need treatment and care. Moral sensitivity is the ability to identify the existing moral problem and understand the moral consequences of the decisions made on the patient’s part. Physicians are always exposed to moral distress due to various circumstances.Objectives:In this survey, we evaluated moral sensitivity and moral distress among physicians and the relationship of these ethical factors on them. Hence, we assessed y relationship between moral sensitivity and moral distress in physicians will facilitate their sound management so as to provide high-quality and safe health services. Moreover it will confirm proposed theories regarding this subject.Materials and Methods:This cross-sectional descriptive-analytic study aimed at investigating the relationship between moral sensitivity and moral distress among 321 specialist physicians working in hospitals affiliated to Tehran Medical Universities in Tehran. The samples were selected through two-stage random cluster sampling method. A three-partite questionnaire comprising of demographic characteristics, moral distress, and moral sensitivity was used for collecting data which then were analyzed using SPSS-20.Results:There was a negative significant relationship between moral sensitivity and moral distress frequency; there was a positive significant relationship between moral sensitivity and moral distress intensity. Participating in medical ethics courses increased moral sensitivity and decreased the frequency of moral distress.Conclusions:Participating in medical ethics courses increased moral sensitivity and decreased the frequency of moral distress.
Background and Objective:Selecting the appropriate technique for surgical incisions, and reconstruction of facial defects after skin tumour excision has always been one of the surgeon's biggest concerns. The aim of this study is to compare the results between the local flap and skin graft to reconstruct cheek defects after basal cell carcinoma excision.Patients and Methods:In this retrospective study, 40 patients with skin defects resulting from skin tumour (Basal cell carcinoma) excision in cheek zones (16 sub-orbital, 18 bucco-mandibular and six auricular) were treated using local flap (n = 20) and skin graft (n = 20) from October 2010 to April 2012. All patients were followed up for 12 months, postoperatively. In addition, general assessments including complications, patient satisfaction, tissue co-ordination, skin colour and hospitalisation days were obtained.Results:Five patients had postoperative hyper-pigmentation complication in the skin graft group and none occurred in the local flap (P = 0.046). In the early postoperative period (2 weeks), mean scores in patient satisfaction, tissue co-ordination and skin colour were statistically significant increase in the local flaps (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, respectively) and in the later postoperative period (12 months) only mean scores in skin colour significantly increased in the local flaps (P < 0.001). The mean postoperative length of hospitalisation days was 1.7 ± 0.4 days in the local flap group, and 3.63 ± 1.16 days in the skin graft group (P = 0.001).Conclusion:In the local flap group: Patient satisfaction, tissue co-ordination and skin colour were improved after 2 weeks. Also in 12-months follow up visits, skin colour was improved significantly and the hyperpigmentation was reduced. Generally, in this study the local flaps had better results in clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. However, for each cheek defect the surgeon must choose the appropriate reconstruction strategy to avoid undesirable outcomes.
Background:Rapid ultrasound in shock (RUSH) is the most recent emergency ultrasound protocol, designed to help clinicians better recognize distinctive shock etiologies in a shorter time frame.Objectives:In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of the RUSH protocol, performed by an emergency physician or radiologist, in predicting the type of shock in critical patients.Patients and Methods:An emergency physician or radiologist performed the RUSH protocol for all patients with shock status at the emergency department. All patients were closely followed to determine their final clinical diagnosis. The agreement between the initial impression provided by RUSH and the final diagnosis was investigated by calculating the Kappa index. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of RUSH for diagnosis of each case.Results:We performed RUSH on 77 patients. Kappa index was 0.71 (P Value = 0.000), reflecting acceptable general agreement between initial impression and final diagnosis. For hypovolemic, cardiogenic and obstructive shock, the protocol had an NPV above 97% yet it had a lower PPV. For shock with distributive or mixed etiology, RUSH showed a PPV of 100% but it had low sensitivity. Subgroup analysis showed a similar Kappa index for the emergency physician and radiologist (0.70 and 0.73, respectively) in performing rush.Conclusions:This study highlights the role of the RUSH exam performed by an emergency physician, to make a rapid and reliable diagnosis of shock etiology, especially in order to rule out obstructive, cardiogenic and hypovolemic shock types in initial exam of shock patients.
Epidemiologic study, level IV.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.