scholarly journals DEXTROSE GEL IS A SAFE TREATMENT FOR NEONATAL HYPOGLYCAEMIA: FOLLOW UP AT 4.5 YEARS OF THE SUGAR BABIES RANDOMISED TRIAL

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (S1) ◽  
pp. 24-24
2014 ◽  
Vol 99 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A64.2-A65 ◽  
Author(s):  
DL Harris ◽  
PJ Weston ◽  
JM Alsweiler ◽  
B Thompson ◽  
T Wouldes ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Rebecca Griffith ◽  
Joanne Elizabeth Hegarty ◽  
Jane M Alsweiler ◽  
Greg D Gamble ◽  
Robyn May ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of prophylactic dextrose gel for prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia on neurodevelopment and executive function at 2 years’ corrected age.DesignProspective follow-up of a randomised trial.SettingNew Zealand.PatientsParticipants from the pre-hypoglycaemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose (pre-hPOD) trial randomised to one of four dose regimes of buccal 40% dextrose gel or equivolume placebo.Main outcome measuresCoprimary outcomes were neurosensory impairment and executive function. Secondary outcomes were components of the primary outcomes, neurology, anthropometry and health measures.ResultsWe assessed 360 of 401 eligible children (90%) at 2 years’ corrected age. There were no differences between dextrose gel dose groups, single or multiple dose groups, or any dextrose and any placebo groups in the risk of neurosensory impairment or low executive function (any dextrose vs any placebo neurosensory impairment: relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.19, p=0.23; low executive function: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.06, p=0.07). There were also no differences between groups in any secondary outcomes. There was no difference between children who did or did not develop neonatal hypoglycaemia in the risk of neurosensory impairment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.64, p=0.81) or low executive function (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.59, p=0.43).ConclusionProphylactic dextrose gel did not alter neurodevelopment or executive function and had no adverse effects to 2 years’ corrected age, but this study was underpowered to detect potentially clinically important effects on neurosensory outcomes.


2000 ◽  
Vol 118 (4) ◽  
pp. A722
Author(s):  
Krishnaraj Ragunath ◽  
John G. Williams ◽  
Wai-Yee Cheung ◽  
Mesbahur M. Rahman ◽  
Ian T. Russell ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 96 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Harju ◽  
M. Pääkkönen ◽  
M. Eskelinen

Background and Aims: In some studies minilaparotomy cholecystectomy (MC) has been shown to be as good as laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) in the surgical treatment of cholecystolithiasis. To our knowledge, the MC operation is rarely considered as a day surgery procedure. Patients and Methods: Thirty elective symptomatic non-complicated patients were included in the study during the end of the year 2004 to June 2005. The mean age of patients was 52 years (range 27–68), the mean body mass index 29 kg/m2 (range 19–41). Gallstones were confirmed with ultrasound and the pre-operative liver laboratory tests were normal in all patients. A five (+/-2) centimetre-long incision was used avoiding to split the rectus abdominis muscle. All patients were re-evaluated four weeks postoperatively with the follow-up letter. Results: The average operating time was 51 minutes (range 30–105 minutes). Day surgery was possible in 25 cases (83%). Five patients (17%) stayed over night at the hospital. There were four (13%) conversions to conventional cholecystectomy. The average postoperative sick leave was 16 days (range 14–30). Two patients returned to hospital. One patient had wound pain, but no complication was found, and the patient was not admitted. One patient had a wound infection and spent 6 days in the hospital. Twenty-nine (97%) patients were satisfied with the operation and were ready to recommend it for other patients. Conclusions: The results of this study support the suitability of MC as a day surgery procedure, but a prospective randomised trial is needed to evaluate the relative advantages of MC and LC.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document