Background and purposeIntravenous thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator is standard treatment in acute stroke today. The benefit of endovascular treatment has been questioned. Recently, studies evaluating endovascular treatment and intravenous thrombolysis compared with intravenous thrombolysis alone, have reported improved outcome for the intervention group. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing endovascular treatment in addition to intravenous thrombolysis with intravenous thrombolysis alone.MethodsDatabases were searched for eligible randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was a functional neurological outcome after 90 days. A secondary outcome was severe disability and death. Data were pooled in the control and intervention groups, and OR was calculated on an intention to treat basis with 95% CIs. Outcome heterogeneity was evaluated with Cochrane's Q test (significance level cut-off value at <0.10) and I2 (significance cut-off value >50%) with the Mantel–Haenszel method for dichotomous outcomes. A p value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.ResultsSix studies met the eligibility criteria, and data from 1569 patients were analyzed. A higher probability of a functional neurological outcome after 90 days was found for the intervention group (OR 2, 95% CI 2 to 3). There was a significantly higher probability of death and severe disability in the control group compared with the intervention group.ConclusionsEndovascular treatment in addition to intravenous thrombolysis for acute ischemic stroke leads to an improved clinical outcome after 3 months, compared with patients receiving intravenous thrombolysis alone.

No abstract

Background: Autologous donor skin harvested for transplantation is a common procedure in patients with burns, and patients often feel more pain at the donor site than is justified by the extent of trauma. Topical morphine gels have been thought to have an effect on peripheral opioid receptors by creating antinociceptive and anti-inflammatory effects, which could potentially reduce the systemic use of morphine-like substances and their adverse effects. Methods: We therefore did a paired, randomised, double-blind placebo study to investigate the effect of morphine gel and placebo on dual donor sites that had been harvested in 13 patients. Pain was measured on a visual analogue scale (VAS) 15 times in a total of 5 days. Results: The mean (SD) VAS was 1.6 (2.3) for all sites, 1.5 (2.2) for morphine, and 2.0 (2.5) for placebo. The pain relieving effects of morphine gel were not significantly better than placebo. Conclusion: The assessment of pain at donor sites is subjective, and more systematic and objective studies are needed. Highlights