title
stringlengths 1
1.19k
| keywords
stringlengths 0
668
| concept
stringlengths 0
909
| paragraph
stringlengths 0
61.8k
| PMID
stringlengths 10
11
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
REFERENCES | PMC10076092 |
|||
Background | DISEASE, TRIGGER FINGER, TRIGGER FINGER | Trigger finger is a common disease with a lifetime prevalence of 2%. One of the frequently preferred non-surgical treatments is blinded injection around the A1 pulley. This study aims to compare the clinical results of ultrasound-guided and blinded corticosteroid injection in the trigger finger.
| PMC10294380 |
|
Methods | TRIGGER FINGER, COMPLICATIONS | In this prospective clinical study, 66 patients who had persistent symptoms of a single trigger finger were included. Patients with similar baseline characteristics such as age, gender, triggering period, and comorbidities were randomized. 34 patients had ultrasound-guided (UG), and 32 had blinded injections (BG). QDASH, VAS, time to return to work, and complications were compared between the groups. | PMC10294380 |
|
Results | The mean age was 52,66 (29–73) years. There were 18 male and 48 female patients. In the UG, the triggering resolved faster, returning to work was earlier, and the medication period was shorter ( | PMC10294380 |
||
Conclusion | TRIGGER FINGER | Using ultrasound guidance for corticosteroid injections is more effective for treating trigger fingers than the blinded method, leading to better results and a faster return to work in the early stages of treatment. | PMC10294380 |
|
Keywords | PMC10294380 |
|||
Background | inflammation | INFLAMMATION, TRIGGER FINGER, HAND SWELLING | Trigger finger (TF) is the inflammation and swelling of the retinacular sheath that gradually restricts the mobility of flexor tendons [ | PMC10294380 |
Materials and methods | finger contracture | RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS, NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE, TRIGGER FINGER, DISEASES, COMPLICATIONS | The present study was designed as a prospective controlled study and initiated upon the approval of the local ethics committee. The present study included successive patients with Quinnel stage 2,3 or 4 trigger fingers who did not respond to the conservative treatment (splint, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory, drugs and exercise) and gave their consent on the patient consent form. The two groups of patients treated with blinded injection (BG) or USG-guided injection (UG) were compared in terms of demographic data, trigger recovery time, QDASH (Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder and Hand) scores, VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) scores, time until return to work, complications, and other diseases. QDASH scores of the patients were recorded before the injection and at 1–4 to 12–24 weeks after the injection. Their VAS scores were recorded before and after injection.Patients over the age of 18 who had no history of treatment or surgery for trigger fingers were included in the study. The exclusion criteria herein were having congenital trigger fingers, having multiple trigger fingers, having a neurological disease, having finger contracture, and having rheumatoid arthritis.In the blinded injection, patients were positioned in a sitting position with the elbow in 90The Samsung trademark ultrasound device and the LA2-14A linear probe with a frequency of 2.0–14.0 MHz were used for ultrasound-guided injections. In the USG-guided injection, patients were positioned in a sitting position with their elbow in 90Ultrasound guided trigger finger injection. Arrow: 27 G needle, + : inside of the swollen flexor tendon sheath after injection, In both groups of the two techniques, the patients were examined for their VAS and QDASH scores at the time of their first-week follow-up, and in those who demonstrated no improvement, the injection was repeated. | PMC10294380 |
Statistical analysis | Excel (Microsoft Corporation, WA, USA) was used to collect and manage the study data, and SPSS version 24.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) was used to perform data analyses. The quantitative data were presented as mean ± standard deviation, whereas the qualitative data were presented as frequencies with percentages. The Independent t-test was used to detect the differences in normally distributed numerical values. In contrast, the Mann–Whitney | PMC10294380 |
||
Author contributions | MT: Design of the work, drafting the work, approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. KT: Interpretation of data for the work, revising the work critically for important intellectual content, approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. ÖDA: Interpretation of data for the work, drafting the work, approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. HÇT: Interpretation of data for the work, revising the work critically for important intellectual content, approval of the version to be published, agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work. | PMC10294380 |
||
Funding | There is no funding source. | PMC10294380 |
||
Availability of data and materials | Not applicable. | PMC10294380 |
||
Declarations | PMC10294380 |
|||
Competing interests | The authors declare no competing interests. | PMC10294380 |
||
Ethics and consent to participate | This study was approved by the institutional review board of the No. 2/2020.K-060 of Istinye University. | PMC10294380 |
||
Competing interest | On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. | PMC10294380 |
||
References | PMC10294380 |
|||
Background | postoperative gastrointestinal hypokinesis, Gastrointestinal hypokinesis | SIDE EFFECT | Gastrointestinal hypokinesis can occur transiently after benign gynecologic surgery. Opioids cause the side effect of postoperative gastrointestinal hypokinesis, but an opioid-sparing anaesthetic protocol based on esketamine reduces intraoperative opioid consumption. Therefore, this study hypothesised that an opioid-sparing anaesthetic protocol based on esketamine would shorten the gastrointestinal function recovery time after benign gynaecological laparoscopic surgery. | PMC10288755 |
Methods | PONV | This was a prospective randomized controlled double-blind study conducted in a single centre. All patients scheduled for elective benign laparoscopic gynaecological surgery at Xing’an Meng People’s Hospital, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, from November 2021 to April 2022 were consecutively enrolled and randomly divided into the opioid-sparing anaesthesia group (Group OS) and the conventional anaesthesia group (Group C). Postoperative first exhaust time, feeding time and postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) were analyzed in both groups. | PMC10288755 |
|
Results | intraoperative bleeding | INTRAOPERATIVE BLEEDING | A total of 71 patients were enrolled in this study, including 35 in Group OS and 36 in Group C. The general condition, operative time, type of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, intraoperative fluid volume and intraoperative urine volume were not statistically different between the two groups. Compared with Group C, significantly shorter first postoperative flatus time (11 [8, 14] h vs. 14 [11, 18], | PMC10288755 |
Conclusion | PONV | The esketamine-based opioid-sparing anaesthetic protocol can shorten the postoperative first flatus time after benign laparoscopic surgery in gynaecology, and reduce the incidence of PONV. In addition, the application of esketamine may reduce the postoperative opioid dose requirement of patients. | PMC10288755 |
|
Trial registration | : This study was registered with the China Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100052528, 30/10/2021). | PMC10288755 |
||
Keywords | PMC10288755 |
|||
Introduction | POI, gastrointestinal hypokinesis, trauma | POSTOPERATIVE INTESTINAL OBSTRUCTION, INTRAOPERATIVE BLOOD LOSS | Benign gynecologic surgery, including laparoscopic surgery, is associated with transient gastrointestinal hypokinesis leading to postoperative intestinal obstruction (POI) [Previous studies have shown that the incidence of POI is associated with operative time, intraoperative blood loss, surgical trauma, intestinal manipulation, and opioid consumption [Opioid-sparing anaesthesia is implemented by partially replacing the effects of opioids with non-opioid analgesics or regional blocks [ | PMC10288755 |
Methods | allergy | ALLERGY | This prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial, which adhered to CONSORT guidelines, was approved and was performed from November 2021 to April 2022, in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association. The study was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Xi’an League People’s Hospital, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (approval number: YJXM2021YB2, 25/09/2021, Chairman: Hui Jiang) and registered with the China Clinical Trials Registry (registration number: ChiCTR2100052528, 30/10/2021). All patients signed an informed consent form.All patients aged 18–65 years scheduled to undergo elective benign laparoscopic gynecologic surgery at Xing’an Meng People’s Hospital, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Regio were consecutively enrolled. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I or II patient; (2) undergoing benign laparoscopic gynaecological surgery, and (3) consenting voluntarily to participate in the study and signing an informed consent form. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) pregnant women; (2) patients categorised in ASA class III and above; (3) emergency surgery; (4) legally protected adults (under judicial protection, guardianship or supervision) deprived of liberty; (5) history of laparotomy, and (6) allergy to experimental drugs. | PMC10288755 |
Blinding and randomisation method | In this study, patients were randomly grouped using computer-generated random numbers, and the results of the grouping were kept in sealed opaque envelopes. After obtaining informed consent from the patients, the nurse opened the envelope and divided the patients into either the opioid-sparing anesthesia group (OS group) or the conventional anesthesia group (C group). At the same time the nurse prepared induction medication and intraoperative maintenance medication. Preparation of anesthesia induction medication: 100 mg esketamine and 50 µg sufentanil were configured as 10 ml solution placed in a 10 ml syringe, respectively, and labeled as experimental medication provided to the anesthesiologist in the operating room and given at 0.05 ml.kg-1 during induction. Maintenance drug configuration: In the OS group, 50 mg of esketamine was configured as 50 ml and placed in a 50 ml syringe, and in the C group, 50 ml of 0.9% sodium chloride was placed in a 50 ml syringe, and both were labeled as experimental drugs and provided to the anesthesiologist in the operating room, and intraoperative maintenance was continuously pumped at 0.25 ml.kg-1.h-1. Postoperative follow-up was done by a nurse who was unaware of the grouping. The interoperative anesthesiologists, patients, and postoperative medical staff in this study were unaware of the grouping. | PMC10288755 |
||
Anaesthesia method | µg.kgPropofol, NRS, pain | INFILTRATION | All patients fasted for 6–8 h and abstained from drinking for 4 h. After patients entered the operating room, intravenous access was routinely opened, oxygen was administered by face mask, and heart rate, noninvasive blood pressure, bispectral index (BIS), respiration, and oxygen saturation were continuously monitored.Group OS: Propofol 1.5–2.5 mg/kg, esketamine 0.5 mg/kg and cis-atracurium 0.15–0.20 mg/kg were used for induction, and a laryngeal mask was placed after successful induction. Intraoperatively, esketamine 0.25 mg.kgGroup C: Propofol 1.5–2.5 mg/kg, sufentanil 0.25 µg/kg and cis-atracurium 0.15–0.20 mg/kg were used for induction, and a laryngeal mask was placed after successful induction.Propofol and remifentanil were used intraoperatively in both groups. The propofol dosage was adjusted under BIS monitoring to target a BIS value of between 45 and 60. The starting dose of remifentanil was 6 µg.kgPropofol and remifentanil were stopped immediately after surgery and sufentanil 0.1 µg/kg and ketorolac 30 mg were given intravenously. All patients were given peri-incisional infiltration by the surgeon before skin suturing and 15–20 ml of 0.5% ropivacaine (5 ml/incision) was used as a local anaesthetic. All patients were given a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist for prophylactic antiemetic before the end of the surgery. All patients were admitted to the post-anaesthesia recovery room (PACU) with a laryngeal mask after surgery for recovery from anaesthesia. After successively achieving spontaneous ventilation and consciousness, the laryngeal mask was removed and the patients were transferred to the general ward. All patients were allowed to drink water starting 6 h after surgery. All patients were routinely given oral ibuprofen extended-release capsules 0.3 g/12 h postoperatively for postoperative analgesia. If the numerical rating scale of pain (NRS) > 3 points, tramadol or fentanyl or morphine was given intravenously for analgesic rescue. | PMC10288755 |
Outcomes and data collection | PONV, dizziness, nausea and/or vomiting, pain | SECONDARY | The primary endpoint of this study was the time of first postoperative flatus. Secondary endpoints were anaesthesia resuscitation time, postoperative first feeding time, postoperative nausea and/or vomiting (PONV) incidence, dizziness, postoperative numerical rating scale (NRS) of pain and hospital days postoperatively. All these data were collected by anaesthesia nurses blinded to the subgroups.Resuscitation time was defined as the time between cessation of anaesthetic drug infusion and removal of the laryngeal mask. Postoperative feeding time was defined as the time between the patient’s return to the ward and the time of semi-liquid postoperative feeding. PONV was defined as the occurrence of nausea and/or vomiting from the end of surgery to postoperative day 2. The follow-up nurse assessed the patient’s pain on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3 at 4 pm and recorded the patient’s pain NRS score (0 = no pain, 10 = the most severe pain) at the follow-up visit.In addition to the primary and secondary endpoints of the study, the patients’ general information (age, height, weight, ASA classification, smoking history and history of previous abdominal surgery), intraoperative conditions (operative time, anaesthesia time, intraoperative sufentanil consumption, intraoperative remifentanil consumption, intraoperative fluid volume, intraoperative blood transfusion and intraoperative urine volume), type of surgery and postoperative recovery (mental status and analgesic rescue) were collected. Mental status was only subjectively assessed based on family members’ reports on whether the patient’s mental status changed before and after surgery. The analgesic rescue was recorded irrespective of whether it was applied or not but the type and dose of medication were not recorded. | PMC10288755 |
Statistical analysis | SD | Based on the results of the pretest, the time to first postoperative expulsion was 17.2 ± 6.9 h for patients receiving the opioid-sparing anaesthesia protocol and 27.1 ± 16.2 h for patients receiving the conventional anaesthesia protocol. Taking a test efficacy of 90% and α as 0.05, a sample size of 35 cases per group was obtained using PASS15 software (NCSS LLC, Utah, USA). Considering a 10% nonresponse, 39 cases per group were required.Categorical data were expressed as percentages, and the χ2 test was used for comparison between groups. Continuous data that conformed to a normal distribution were expressed as mean ± SD, and independent samples t-test was used for comparison between groups. Continuous data that did not conform to a normal distribution were expressed as median [25% quartiles, 75% quartiles], and group comparisons were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test or the Kruskal-Wallis test. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 25.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). | PMC10288755 |
|
Results | postoperative nausea and/or vomiting, bleeding, abdominal adhesions, pain, PONV, NRS | ADVERSE REACTIONS, BLEEDING | A total of 94 consenting patients participated in this study from November 2021 to April 2022 at Xing’an Meng People’s Hospital, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. Among them, 9 patients had their surgical plan changed to gynaecological surgery with appendectomy on the day of surgery and 7 preoperative patients declined to participate in the study. Therefore, a total of 78 patients were enrolled in the study and were randomly divided into 2 groups of 39 patients each. Among them, 4 patients in Group OS and 3 patients in Group C were changed to laparotomy due to severe abdominal adhesions. Therefore, data for 35 patients in Group OS and 36 patients in Group C were finally analyzed (Fig.
The study flow chart Notes: OS group, opioid-sparing anaesthesia; C group, conventional anaesthesia groupThere were no significant differences between the two groups in age, height, weight, ASA score, smoking history, history of previous abdominal surgery, intraoperative fluid volume, urine volume, bleeding volume, type of surgery, duration of anaesthesia and duration of the operation (
Comparison of general conditions between OS and C groupsNotes: OS group, opioid-sparing anaesthesia; C group, conventional anaesthesia group
Comparison of intraoperative conditions between OS and C groupsNotes: OS group, opioid-sparing anaesthesia; C group, conventional anaesthesia group
Comparison of intraoperative sufentanil and remifentanil dosage Notes: OS group, opioid-sparing anaesthesia; C group, conventional anaesthesia groupCompared with Group C, the resuscitation time and first postoperative flatus time were significantly shorter in Group OS (7 [
Comparison of main results between OS and C groupsNotes: OS group, opioid-sparing anaesthesia; C group, conventional anaesthesia groupThere was no significant difference in postoperative NRS scores and 24-hour postoperative analgesic rescue between the 2 groups (
Comparison of postoperative analgesia and adverse reactions between OS and C groupsNotes: NRS, numerical rating scale of pain; POD, postoperative day; PONV, postoperative nausea and/or vomiting; OS group, opioid-sparing anaesthesia; C group, conventional anaesthesia group | PMC10288755 |
Acknowledgements | We thank the anesthesiologists and nurses involved in intraoperative anesthesia at the Department of Anesthesiology, Xing’an League People’s Hospital, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region. | PMC10288755 |
||
Authors’ contributions | Yuhua Ma: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Original Draft and Supervision. Xue Cao, Lin Zhang, Suozhu Bao, Jie Ren and Weiwei Ma: Resources and Data Curation. Ran Zhang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - Review & Editing, Supervision and Project administration. All authors reviewed the manuscript. | PMC10288755 |
||
Funding | Support was provided solely from institutional and/or departmental sources. | PMC10288755 |
||
Data Availability | The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.Data supporting the results of this study are available from the Xing’an Meng People’s Hospital, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, but the availability of these data is restricted and they are used under licence from the current study and therefore not publicly available. However, data may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request and with the permission of the Ethics Committee of the Xing’an Meng People’s Hospital. | PMC10288755 |
||
Declarations | PMC10288755 |
|||
Ethics approval and consent to participate | The study was reviewed and approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Xi’an League People’s Hospital, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region (approval number: YJXM2021YB2, 25/09/2021, Chairman: Hui Jiang). All patients signed an informed consent form. This prospective randomized double-blinded clinical trial, which adhered to CONSORT guidelines, was approved and was performed from November 2021 to April 2022, in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association. | PMC10288755 |
||
Consent for publication | Not applicable. | PMC10288755 |
||
Competing interests | The authors declare that they have no competing interests. | PMC10288755 |
||
References | PMC10288755 |
|||
Background | Dexmedetomidine, one of the sedatives, has an analgesic effect. We aimed to investigate postoperative analgesia with dexmedetomidine as adjuvants for procedural sedation using perfusion index (PI). | PMC10214613 |
||
Methods | NRS, pain | In this prospective, randomized, case-control, observational study, 72 adult patients, 19–70 years, who were scheduled for chemoport insertion under monitored anesthesia care were performed. According to the group assignment, remifentanil or dexmedetomidine was simultaneously infused with propofol. The primary outcome was PI 30 min after admission to the post anesthesia care unit (PACU). And, pain severity using numerical rating scale (NRS) score and the relationship between NRS score and PI were investigated. | PMC10214613 |
|
Results | During PACU staying, PI values were significantly different between the two groups PI values at 30 min after admission to the PACU were 1.3 (0.9–2.0) in the remifentanil group and 4.5 (2.9–6.8) in the dexmedetomidine group (median difference, 3; 95% CI, 2.1 to 4.2; | PMC10214613 |
||
Conclusion | postoperative pain, pain | We could not find a significant correlation between PI and NRS score for postoperative pain control. Using PI as a single indicator of pain is insufficient. | PMC10214613 |
|
Trial registration | Clinical Trial Registry of Korea, | PMC10214613 |
||
Keywords | PMC10214613 |
|||
Introduction | Monitored anesthesia care is an anesthetic method applied in relatively simple surgeries, especially in ambulatory surgeries that do not require hospitalization. For adequate sedation, anesthesiologists choose various combinations of sedatives and analgesics. Remifentanil, a µ-opioid, is widely used to induce anesthesia, sedation, and analgesia during anesthesia maintenance. Because of its ultra-short half-life, remifentanil does not exhibit a residual opioid effect after discontinuation of administration [The perfusion index (PI) is a device that measures the ratio between pulsatile and non-pulsatile blood flow [ | PMC10214613 |
||
Materials and methods | PMC10214613 |
|||
Ethics approval and consent to participate | -11, RECRUITMENT | This prospective, randomized, case-control, observational study was approved by the Samsung Medical Center Institutional Review Board, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea (Chairperson: Prof. Young Keun On) on 6th, December 2018 (no. SMC 2018-11-111). Prior to the recruitment of the first participants, we registered them in the Clinical Trial Registry of Korea ( | PMC10214613 |
|
Patients and protocols | allergy | ALLERGY | Adult patients aged 19–70 years with American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I and II scheduled for elective chemoport insertion under monitored anesthesia care were assessed for eligibility and were included between February 2019 and December 2019. Exclusion criteria were allergy to certain anesthetic agents; body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m | PMC10214613 |
Randomization and group allocation | One statistician who was not involved in this trial generated a random allocation sequence using permuted-block randomization with a block size of 4. Randomization and group allocation were performed in a 1:1 ratio using the sealed opaque envelope technique. The study drugs were prepared in a 20 ml syringe depending on the group assigned: | PMC10214613 |
||
Remifentanil group | remifentanil 1 mg (Remiva Inj., Remifentanil Hydrochloride, Hana Pharm Co., Ltd.) + 0.9% saline 20 ml. | PMC10214613 |
||
Dexmedetomidine group | dexmedetomidine 80 μg (premixed solution of 4 mcg/ml) (Precedex Inj. Dexmedetomidine Hydrochloride, Pfizer Ltd.) | PMC10214613 |
||
Protocol | Pain, pain | Premedication was not permitted for all participants. The prepared study drug was delivered to a clinical anesthesiologist (unrelated to this study) just before the start of anesthesia induction. On arrival in the operating room, standard monitors, including electrocardiograms, pulse oximetry, and noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP), were applied. A PI sensor (Radical-7®; Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA) was attached to the index finger and the finger was covered with a black opaque pouch to minimize light interference. The body temperature of all patients in our institute was maintained above 36.5 °C in the operating room using circulating-water blanket. The temperature of the operating room and PACU was maintained as 21 and 23 °C to prevent the influence of environmental temperature. In addition, to prevent the influence on blood flow, the NIBP was measured on the opposite side of the attachment site of the PI sensor.The degree of sedation was evaluated using the modified observer’s assessment of alertness/sedation (OAA/S) scale. To maintain OAA/S scale of 3–4, the study drugs were administered at the following doses: remifentanil 0.05–0.1 μg/kg/min and dexmedetomidine 0.2–0.7 μg/kg/h. The propofol infusion rate was adjusted to within the range of 25–75 μg/kg/min. If the patient or surgeon requested more sedation, 1–2 mg midazolam was additionally injected during the procedure. Before the surgical incision, all participants were administered 80 mg of 2% lidocaine as a local anesthetic on the skin. Depending on the surgical procedure, PI values, mean blood pressure (MBP), and heart rate (HR) were recorded at baseline, skin incision, dilator insertion, and skin suture. Intraoperative airway management was performed, including head tilting, chin lifting, jaw-thrust manipulation, and nasopharyngeal and laryngeal airway insertion. If airway management was required, the anesthetic dose was adjusted.After finishing the surgery, all anesthetics including the study drugs were discontinued in the operating room. Then, the patient was transferred to the post anesthesia care unit (PACU). PI values, pain severity, OAA/S scale, and additional analgesic requirements were recorded. Pain severity was investigated using numerical rating scale (NRS) scores on a 10-point scale and patient satisfaction was recorded using 5-point Likert scale [ | PMC10214613 |
|
Outcomes | NRS | SECONDARY | The primary outcome was the comparison of PI values 30 min after admission to the PACU. To evaluate the lasting effect of the anesthetic used during sedation, PI measurement time of the primary outcome was set to 30 min after entering the PACU. The secondary outcomes were the comparison of NRS scores and PI values according to the time intervals in the PACU and the correlation of the PI and NRS scores in the PACU. In addition, the incidence of airway management during surgery and additional analgesic requirements in the PACU were investigated. | PMC10214613 |
Statistical analysis | NRS | The sample size was calculated based on unpublished clinical data. The mean (standard deviation) of PI value at 30 min after entering PACU was 2.81 (1.88) in dexmedetomidine group and 1.5 (1.38) in remifentanil group. To evaluate this at a significance level of 5% and power of 90%, we needed 35 patients in each group. Considering an expected dropout rate of 10%, 78 participants were required.Continuous variables were expressed as mean (standard deviation) or median (interquartile range), as appropriate, and normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Categorical variables were presented as numbers (percentages). Intraoperative and postoperative continuous variables were compared using the t-test or Mann-Whitney U test as appropriate. Bonferroni corrections were applied for post-hoc analyses. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate. Changes in PI in the PACU were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The correlation between NRS scores and PI values in the PACU was analyzed using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). | PMC10214613 |
|
Acknowledgements | Not applicable. | PMC10214613 |
||
Author contributions | Doyeon Kim: helped with study concept development, study design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, writing and drafting the article, and revising the manuscript.-Changjin Lee: helped with data analysis, and interpretation.-HanWool Bae: helped with data analysis, and interpretation.-Jeayoun Kim: helped with data analysis, and interpretation.-Eun Jung Oh: helped with data collection and analysis.-Ji Seon Jeong: helped with study concept development, study design, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, drafting the article, and revising the manuscript, in addition to leading the research group and supervising the work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. | PMC10214613 |
||
Funding | Not applicable. | PMC10214613 |
||
Data availability | The data associated with the paper are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. | PMC10214613 |
||
Declarations | PMC10214613 |
|||
Competing interests | The authors declare that they have no competing interests. | PMC10214613 |
||
Ethics approval and consent to participate | -11, RECRUITMENT | This prospective, randomized, cohort observational study was approved by the Samsung Medical Center Institutional Review Board, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea (Chairperson: Prof. Young Keun On) on 6th, December 2018 (no. SMC 2018-11-111). Prior to the recruitment of the first participants, we registered them in the Clinical Trial Registry of Korea ( | PMC10214613 |
|
Consent for publication | Not applicable. | PMC10214613 |
||
Previous presentation | Not applicable. | PMC10214613 |
||
References | PMC10214613 |
|||
Key Points | PMC10015302 |
|||
Question | Is there an association between standardized e-cigarette packaging and interest in trying e-cigarette products among samples of youths and adults in Great Britain? | PMC10015302 |
||
Findings | In this study comprising 2 surveys conducted among 2469 youths (aged 11-18 years) and 12 046 adults (aged ≥18 years) from Great Britain, youths had higher odds of reporting no interest in trying e-cigarettes in standardized green packaging than e-cigarettes in branded packaging, but adults had lower odds of reporting no interest in trying e-cigarettes in standardized green packaging than e-cigarettes in branded packaging. | PMC10015302 |
||
Meaning | This study suggests that standardized packaging measures may reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes among youths without reducing their appeal among adults. | PMC10015302 |
||
Importance | e-Cigarette vaping among youths and adults has increased in Great Britain. The design of e-cigarette packaging may appeal to youths. Regulations that reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to youths may deter adult smokers from trying e-cigarettes to help them quit smoking. | PMC10015302 |
||
Objective | To examine the association of fully branded and standardized e-cigarette packaging with interest in trying products among youths and adults in Great Britain. | PMC10015302 |
||
Design, Setting, and Participants | In this survey study comprising 2 surveys, the online Action on Smoking and Health Smokefree Great Britain survey collected data between March 25 and April 16, 2021, from a representative sample of 2469 youths (aged 11-18 years) and between February 18 and March 18, 2021, from a representative sample of 12 046 adults (aged ≥18 years). | PMC10015302 |
||
Interventions | A between-individuals experimental design was used to examine participants’ perceptions of e-cigarette packs that were digitally altered to remove brand imagery and color. Participants were randomly assigned to view a set of 3 e-cigarette packs from 1 of 3 different packaging conditions: (1) fully branded packs (control), (2) white standardized packs with brand name, or (3) green standardized packs with brand name. | PMC10015302 |
||
Main Outcomes and Measures | REGRESSION | Youth participants were asked which product people their age would be most interested in trying, while adult participants were asked which product they would be most interested in trying. All participants could respond “no interest” or “don’t know.” Logistic regression models tested whether reporting no interest in trying the e-cigarettes differed between the pack conditions. | PMC10015302 |
|
Results | This study included 2469 youths (1286 female youths [52.1%]; mean [SD] age, 15.0 [2.3] years) and 12 046 adults (6412 female [53.2%]; mean [SD] age, 49.9 [17.4] years). Youths had higher odds of reporting no interest among people their age in trying the e-cigarettes packaged in green (292 of 815 [35.8%]; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.71; | PMC10015302 |
||
Conclusions and Relevance | The findings of this survey study suggest that standardized packaging measures may reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes among youths without reducing their appeal among adults.This survey study examines the association of fully branded vs standardized e-cigarette packaging with interest in trying products among youths and adults in Great Britain. | PMC10015302 |
||
Introduction | MAY | In Great Britain in 2022, 8.3% of adults and 7.0% of youths aged 11 to 17 years reported current vaping.e-Cigarette marketing, including packaging, has been found to influence the appeal of vaping products to youth and adult smokers.Standardized (or “plain”) packaging for combustible tobacco cigarettes was introduced in Great Britain in May 2016, requiring cigarettes and rolling tobacco to be manufactured and sold in standardized Pantone 448 C olive-green packs with a matte finish and the brand name in standard font and no brand imagery or logos.Standardized tobacco packaging is effective for reducing the appeal of tobacco cigarettes, particularly among young people. | PMC10015302 |
|
Methods | PMC10015302 |
|||
Data Sources | SECONDARY, ASH | The data provided in this survey study were obtained from 2 online surveys: the Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) 2021 Smokefree Great Britain Youth Survey and the ASH 2021 Smokefree Great Britain Adult Survey. For the youth survey, informed consent was provided either by the parents of those aged 11 to 15 years or by individuals aged 16 to 18 years. For the adult survey, informed consent was provided by participants. Ethical approval for the analyses in this study was not required because this study involved secondary analysis of preexisting data, in line with King’s College London policy. This study followed the American Association for Public Opinion Research ( | PMC10015302 |
|
ASH Youth Survey | ASH | The online 2021 ASH Smokefree Great Britain Youth Survey collected data from young people aged 11 to 18 years between March 25 and April 16, 2021. Participants were drawn from an existing online panel maintained by YouGov. Active sampling was used, which dynamically evaluates what surveys are available for a particular panel member based on their personal characteristics, and restrictions are put in place to ensure that only those who are selected from their panel of registered users are allowed to take part in the survey.The experiment was conducted as part of the online ASH Smokefree Great Britain Youth Survey. A between-individuals experimental design was used to examine perceptions of e-cigarette packs that were digitally altered to remove brand imagery and color ( | PMC10015302 |
|
e-Cigarette Packs by Experimental Condition | The green standardized pack color, using the same olive-green Pantone 448 C shade in a matte finish, was chosen to reflect the current standardized packaging requirements for tobacco cigarette packs in Great Britain.The survey was completed by 2513 youths. Respondents who reported “Prefer not to say” for the outcome (n = 13) or any covariates (n = 31) were excluded from the sample, resulting in a final analytic sample of 2469 respondents. eTable 1 in | PMC10015302 |
||
No Interest in Trying e-Cigarette Products Among People Your Age (Outcome) | Respondents were shown a set of 3 e-cigarette packs based on experimental condition ( | PMC10015302 |
||
Vaping Status | Respondents were asked, “Have you ever heard of e-cigarettes? They are also sometimes called vapes, shisha pens or electronic cigarettes.” Those who responded “Yes” were asked “Which ONE of the following is closest to describing your experience of e-cigarettes?” with available responses ranging from “I have never used an e-cigarette” to “I use e-cigarettes every day.” Response options were classified into 3 categories: “never user,” “ever user,” and “current user” (including occasional and regular vaping) (eTable 1 in | PMC10015302 |
||
Smoking Status | Respondents were asked which statement best applied to their experience with cigarettes. Response options were classified into 3 categories: “never smoker,” “ever smoker,” and “current smoker” (including occasional and regular smoking) (eTable 1 in | PMC10015302 |
||
ASH Adult Survey | ASH | The online 2021 ASH Smokefree Great Britain Adult Survey collected data on tobacco and vaping product use among adults aged 18 years or older between February 18 and March 18, 2021. Like the ASH Youth Survey, participants were drawn from an existing online panel maintained by YouGov using active sampling. The experimental design and 3 conditions used in the ASH Adult Survey were identical to those used in the ASH Youth Survey (The survey was completed by 12 248 adults. Respondents who reported “Prefer not to say” (n = 47) for the outcome measure and/or “Don’t know” for covariates (n = 155) were excluded, resulting in a final analytic sample of 12 046 respondents. eTable 1 in | PMC10015302 |
|
No Interest in Trying e-Cigarette Products (Outcome) | Respondents were shown a set of 3 e-cigarette packs based on experimental condition ( | PMC10015302 |
||
Vaping Status | Respondents were asked which statement best described their experience with e-cigarettes: “I have never heard of e-cigarettes and never tried them,” “I have heard of e-cigarettes but have never tried them,” “I have tried e-cigarettes but do not use them (anymore),” “I have tried e-cigarettes but still use them,” and “Don’t know.” Ever vapers were subsequently asked how often they had used or currently used e-cigarettes, with response options ranging from “Less than once a month” to “Every day.” Responses were classified into 3 categories: “never vapers,” “ever vapers,” and “current vapers” (including occasional and regular vaping) (eTable 1 in | PMC10015302 |
||
Smoking Status | Respondents were asked which statement best applied to their experience with cigarettes. Response options were classified into 3 categories: “never smokers,” “former smokers,” and “current smokers” (including occasional and regular smoking) (eTable 1 in | PMC10015302 |
||
Statistical Analysis | The χAll analyses were conducted in SPSS, version 28 (IBM Corp). All statistical tests were 2-sided, and | PMC10015302 |
||
Results | ASH | The ASH Youth Survey was completed by 2513 youths, of whom 2469 (1286 female youths [52.1%]; mean [SD] age, 15.0 [2.3] years) were included in the analytical sample; the ASH Adult Survey was completed by 12 248 adults, of whom 12 046 (6412 women [53.2%]; mean [SD] age, 49.9 [17.4] years) were included in the analytical sample. Participant demographic characteristics are presented in eTables 3 and 4 in When testing for successful randomization, except for social grade among the adult sample (χ | PMC10015302 |
|
Packaging Experiment: Youth Survey | Overall (across all conditions), 943 youths (38.2%) reported that people their age would be interested in trying any of the vaping products, 794 (32.2%) reported that people their age would have no interest in trying any of the products, and 732 (29.6%) reported that they did not know which of the displayed vaping products people their age would be most interested in trying (eTable 5 in | PMC10015302 |
||
Adjusted Associations Between Reporting No Interest Among People Their Age in Trying Any of the Products Shown and Packaging Condition, ASH Youth Survey 2021 (N = 2469) | REGRESSION, INTERACTIONS, ASH | Abbreviations: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; ASH, Action on Smoking and Health; NA, not applicable.Analyses were adjusted for sex, age group, socioeconomic status, vaping status, and smoking status. All data are unweighted.Reference category is selecting any of the products or “Don’t know.”ABC1 indicates high socioeconomic status: intermediate and higher managerial, administrative, supervisory, clerical, and junior managerial professional occupations. C2DE indicates low socioeconomic status: skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled manual occupations; unemployed; and lowest-grade occupations.Includes respondents who had never heard of e-cigarettes.Estimates likely unreliable due to low sample sizes.A significantly smaller percentage of youths aged 16 to 18 years reported no interest in trying any of the products compared with youths aged 11 to 15 years. A significantly smaller percentage of youths who currently vaped or had ever vaped reported no interest in trying any of the products compared with youths who had never vaped. The percentage reporting no interest in trying any of the products was higher among youths who had never smoked than those who had ever or were currently smoking; however, these comparisons were not significant (Because a substantial proportion of youths reported that they did not know which of the displayed vaping products people their age would be interested in trying, a sensitivity analysis was conducted. A multinomial regression model was run in which “Don’t know” was treated as a separate category in the outcome variable. When “Don’t know” was a separate category, youths were more likely to report no interest among people their age in trying products in either green (292 of 815 [35.8%]) or white (264 of 826 [32.0%]) standardized packs compared with branded packs (238 of 828 [28.7%]) (eTable 5 in Interactions were explored between vaping status and packaging condition (eFigure 1 and eTable 6 in Interactions were also explored between smoking status and packaging condition (eFigure 2 and eTable 6 in | PMC10015302 |
|
Associations Between Reporting No Interest in Trying Any of the Products Shown and Packaging Condition, ASH Adult Survey 2021 (N = 12 046) | REGRESSION, INTERACTIONS, ASH | Abbreviations: AOR, adjusted odds ratio; ASH, Action on Smoking and Health; NA, not applicable.Analyses were adjusted for sex, age group, socioeconomic status, vaping status, and smoking status. All data are unweighted.Reference category is “Other,” including selecting any of the products and “Don’t know.”ABC1 indicates high socioeconomic status: intermediate and higher managerial, administrative, supervisory, clerical, and junior managerial professional occupations. C2DE indicates low socioeconomic status: skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled manual occupations; unemployed; and lowest-grade occupations.Includes respondents who had never heard of e-cigarettes.The percentage of adults reporting no interest was higher among all older age groups compared with respondents aged 18 to 29 years and was lower among current vapers than never vapers and ever vapers, and among current smokers and former smokers than never smokers (With respect to the sensitivity analyses, when “Don’t know” was included as its own category in multinomial regression, adults were more likely to report no interest in trying products in white packaging compared with branded packaging. Adults were also more likely to report that they did not know which product they were most interested in trying when products were shown in green or white packaging compared with branded packaging (eTable 8 in Interactions were explored within vaping status and packaging condition (eFigure 3 in | PMC10015302 |
|
Discussion | Findings differed between youths and adults in the associations between e-cigarette packaging and interest in trying e-cigarette products. Compared with fully branded packaging, green standardized e-cigarette packaging with no brand imagery was associated with decreased interest in trying the vaping products shown among youths but not adults. However, there was no significant difference in interest in trying e-cigarettes in white standardized packaging with no brand imagery compared with branded packaging among either youths or adults.For youths, our overall findings are consistent with previous studies that found that green standardized packaging of tobacco cigarettes reduces their appeal.Among adults, the level of no interest in trying any of the e-cigarette products shown was similar across branded, green standardized, and white standardized packaging; however, no interest in trying the products was significantly lower among those exposed to green standardized packaging than branded or standardized white packaging, and sensitivity analyses suggested this was due to an increase in “Don’t know” responses for green standardized packaging. Interest by product packaging also did not differ by vaping and smoking status among adults; thus, our research suggests that removing branded elements from packaging would most likely not impact adult smokers’ interest in trying vaping products. Future research should examine the association of standardized packaging with perceptions of vaping, specifically perceptions of vaping as effective smoking cessation. | PMC10015302 |
||
Limitations and Strengths | ASH | This study has some limitations. First, there were differences between the youth and adult surveys in the wording of the items assessing outcomes, as well as vaping and smoking status. The ASH Youth Survey measure asked respondents about interest among people their age; therefore, responses did not represent participants’ own interest in trying the products shown, but rather their perception of peer interest. However, the ASH Adult Survey measure asked about respondents’ own interest in trying the products shown, meaning that questions for youths and adults were measuring slightly different concepts. Hence, it was not appropriate to directly test for differences between the youth and adult responses. Second, our samples were limited to Great Britain, so findings cannot be generalized to other countries, particularly those with different regulations on e-cigarette and cigarette packaging.This study also has some strengths, including analysis of the associations between standardized e-cigarette packaging and interest. Findings therefore offer valuable and timely evidence that can be used to inform the development of e-cigarette packaging regulations. | PMC10015302 |
|
Conclusions | The findings of this survey study suggest that reducing brand imagery through standardized e-cigarette packaging is associated with decreased appeal of e-cigarette products among youths, specifically never smokers and never vapers, without reducing its appeal among adult smokers. Overall, our findings lend support for reducing brand imagery on e-cigarette products in Great Britain. | PMC10015302 |
||
Background | The purpose of this study is to explore whether decreasing the number of sutures can improve the quality of life after inferior third molar extraction. | PMC10499349 |
||
Material and Methods | trismus, swelling | DRY SOCKET, TRISMUS, POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS | This study used a three-arm randomized design that included 90 individuals. Patients were randomized and divided into three groups—the airtight suture group (traditional), the buccal drainage group, and the no-suture group. Postoperative measurements, including treatment time, visual analog scale, questionnaire on postoperative patient quality of life, and details about trismus, swelling, dry socket, and other postoperative complications were obtained twice and the mean values were recorded. To verify the normal distribution of the data, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed. The statistical differences were evaluated using the one-way ANOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni post-hoc correction. | PMC10499349 |
Results | postoperative pain | The buccal drainage group showed a significant decrease in postoperative pain and better speech ability than the no-suture group on the 3st day, with a mean of 1.3 and 0.7 ( | PMC10499349 |
|
Introduction | postoperative pain, nerve injury, swelling, edema, teeth damage, tooth, trismus | PERICORONITIS, EDEMA, DISEASES, DENTIGEROUS CYST, IMPACTED, SECONDARY, TRISMUS | Impacted third molars are most commonly found among wisdom teeth and lead to clinical diseases, including pericoronitis, adjacent teeth damage, and dentigerous cyst. However, many patients have fears about tooth extraction due to postoperative pain, swelling, trismus, and nerve injury that severely affects the quality of life (Among all the types of flap designs for the removal of an impacted mandibular third molar, the most widely clinically used flap design is the triangular flap (In some cases, the buccal drainage method (without a buccal suture) or the no-suture method are used to release postoperative pain and edema. However, through a literature review, we determined there is still no consensus on whether these two secondary closure methods could improve the patient’s quality of life after a third molar extraction. Thus, the need for suturing in some situations needs to be fully considered. Therefore, in this study we aim to investigate if these two suture methods are more advantageous than the traditional method. | PMC10499349 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.