Additional HBOT did not significantly improve complete wound healing or limb salvage in patients with diabetes and lower-limb ischemia.

We performed a randomized clinical trial on the efficacy of physical therapy on genuine stress incontinence. Study objective: "Is a physical therapeutical training program (pelvic floor muscle training) combined with biofeedback, more effective than the same program without biofeedback in patients with mild or moderate stress incontinence?" Forty-four patients were referred by a general practitioner or a urologist. After informed consent, 40 patients were randomized in an exercises and biofeedback group (BF), or treated with exercises exclusively (pelvic floor muscle training = PFMT). After a diagnostic phase of 1 week every patient received twelve treatment sessions, three times weekly.The primary measure of effect, the quantity of involuntary urine loss, was measured with the 48 hours PAD test (Inco-test Molnlycke). Before every treatment session the Symptoms questionnaire was filled out by the patient and the Patient diary was controlled.The data of the trial were analysed according to the principal of intention to treat. During the trial there was 100% compliance. There were no drop-outs. Both treatment modalities appeared to be effective. After twelve treatment sessions there was a mean improvement of t 55% (P = 0.00) in both treatment groups, measured by the primary measure of effect. In the group with BF this improvement was already realized after six treatment sessions (P = 0.01). Yet, the difference between BF and PFMT faded to reach significance at six treatment sessions (P = 0.08).Although differences in treatment effects between both groups were not significant, our findings suggest that adding biofeedback to pelvic floor muscle exercises might be more effective than pelvic floor muscle exercises alone after six treatments.

Background Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence.Methods ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362.

No abstract