A randomised controlled trial comparing compression therapy after stripping for primary great saphenous vein incompetence

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 669-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attila G Krasznai ◽  
Tim A Sigterman ◽  
Janine P Houtermans-Auckel ◽  
Ed Eussen ◽  
Maarten Snoeijs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Compression Therapy ◽  
Full Recovery ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Venous insufficiency of the lower extremity affects up to 40–60% of general adult population in the Western population, of which around 25% has varicose veins mostly treated by ablation of the incompetent great saphenous vein. Although endovenous options are available, the majority is still treated with stripping of the great saphenous vein for which there is no consensus regarding postoperative compressive therapy. The objective of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to evaluate 4 h compared to 72 h of leg compression after great saphenous vein stripping. Method Patients in the Zuyderland Medical Centre with an indication for stripping of the great saphenous vein were eligible for inclusion in this study. Patients were randomised to 4 or 72 h of leg compression (standard elastic bandaging) after stripping of the great saphenous vein. Primary outcome was change in leg volume after 14 days. Secondary outcomes were post-operative pain scores, complications and time to full recovery. Results A total of 78 patients were randomised, 36 patients enrolled the intervention (4 h) group and 42 patients the control group (72 h). The intervention group (4 h) showed a 57 mL reduction in leg volume after 14 days, compared to 6 mL of the control group (72 h) ( p = 0.11). Post-operative pain, complications and time to full recovery did not statistically differ. Conclusion Wearing leg compression four hours after stripping is non-inferior in preventing leg oedema compared with 72 h compression therapy. No statistically significant difference in pain and time to full recovery was shown.

A randomised controlled trial comparing compression therapy after radiofrequency ablation for primary great saphenous vein incompetence

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
AG Krasznai ◽  
TA Sigterman ◽  
SAM Troquay ◽  
JP Houtermans-Auckel ◽  
MGJ Snoeijs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Radiofrequency Ablation ◽  
Postoperative Pain ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Saphenous Vein ◽  
Great Saphenous Vein ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Compression Therapy ◽  
Full Recovery ◽  
Compression Stockings ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Optimal duration of leg compression after venous ablation remains unclear. This randomised controlled trial evaluates 4 h compared to 72 h of leg compression. Methods Patients were randomised to 4 or 72 h of leg compression after radiofrequency ablation of the great saphenous vein. Primary outcome was change in leg volume after 14 days. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, complications and time to full recovery. Results Patients wearing compression stockings for 4 h after treatment had a 64 mL (95%CI: − 23 to + 193) reduction in leg volume, compared to an increase of 21 mL (95%CI: 8.33–34.5) in patients wearing compression stockings for 72 h ( P = 0.12). Patients wearing compression stockings for 4 h experienced fewer complications (16% vs. 33%, P = 0.05). Postoperative pain and time to full recovery did not differ significantly. Conclusion Wearing compression stockings for 4 h is non-inferior in preventing leg oedema as wearing compression stockings for 72 h.

Capsular closure versus unrepaired interportal capsulotomy after hip arthroscopy in patients with femoroacetabular impingement, results of a patient-blinded randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
pp. 112070002110057
Author(s):  
Niels H Bech ◽  
Inger N Sierevelt ◽  
Sheryl de Waard ◽  
Boudijn S H Joling ◽  
Gino M M J Kerkhoffs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Hip capsular management after hip arthroscopy remains a topic of debate. Most available current literature is of poor quality and are retrospective or cohort studies. As of today, no clear consensus exists on capsular management after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of routine capsular closure versus unrepaired capsulotomy after interportal capsulotomy measured with NRS pain and the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS). Materials and methods: All eligible patients with femoroacetabular impingement who opt for hip arthroscopy ( n = 116) were randomly assigned to one of both treatment groups and were operated by a single surgeon. Postoperative pain was measured with the NRS score weekly the first 12 weeks after surgery. The HAGOS questionnaire was measured at 12 and 52 weeks postoperatively. Results: Baseline characteristics and operation details were comparable between treatment groups. Regarding the NRS pain no significant difference was found between groups at any point the first 12 weeks after surgery ( p = 0.67). Both groups significantly improved after surgery ( p < 0.001). After 3 months follow-up there were no differences between groups for the HAGOS questionnaire except for the domain sport ( p = 0.02) in favour of the control group. After 12 months follow-up there were no differences between both treatment groups on all HAGOS domains ( p  > 0.05). Conclusions: The results of this randomised controlled trial show highest possible evidence that there is no reason for routinely capsular closure after interportal capsulotomy at the end of hip arthroscopy. Trial Registration: This trial was registered at the CCMO Dutch Trial Register: NL55669.048.15.

scholarly journals The Effectiveness of Online Course Intervention to Improve Knowledge of Antimicrobial Resistance among Dental Students, in Comparison to Reference Group Using a Randomized Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (17) ◽  
pp. 2917-2923
Author(s):  
Khalid T. Aboalshamat ◽  
Assim M. Banjar ◽  
Mahmoud I. Al-Jaber ◽  
Noor M. Turkistani ◽  
Mohammed T. Al-Amoudi
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
Online Course ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
And Control

AIM: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a recognised antimicrobial resistance (AMR) online module on knowledge and perception among dental students, using a randomised controlled trial study design. METHODS: Dental students (n = 64, aged 21-25 years) in clinical years agreed to participate in this triple-blinded, parallel, randomised controlled trial. There were 34 students in the study group and 30 students in the control group. The study group participated in an online course covering information about AMR, while students in the control group received another online course about microorganisms in dentistry. Both groups were assessed three times using online questionnaires: before the intervention (T1), after the intervention (T2), and two months later (T3). Each one of T1, T2 and T3 had 22 questions. The questions were repeated each time in T1, T2, and T3 asking about AMR but with different question format, to avoid the possibility of students to memorise the answers. RESULTS: The mean (m) of correct answers for all students on T1 was 12.56, with standard deviation (SD) of 3.2. On T2, m = 14.03 and SD = 3.85, and on T3, m = 14.36 and SD = 3.71. Scores ranged from 0 to 22. The participants in the study and control groups showed significant score improvements from T1 to T2, immediately after the intervention, but there was no significant difference between T2 and T3. The study group students’ scores did not improve significantly from T1 to T3, in contrast to the control group students’ scores. More importantly, there was no significant difference in improvement from T1 to T2 when comparing the study and control groups. CONCLUSION: Online courses might not be reliable learning methods for ensuring the optimal levels of AMR knowledge that are needed by dental practitioners.

scholarly journals Guillotine versus dissection tonsillectomy: randomised, controlled trial

2012 ◽  
Vol 126 (11) ◽  
pp. 1142-1149 ◽  
Author(s):  
S J Frampton ◽  
M J A Ward ◽  
V S Sunkaraneni ◽  
H Ismail-Koch ◽  
Z A Sheppard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Blood Loss ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Operative Blood Loss ◽  
Post Operative Pain ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Secondary Haemorrhage ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Cold Steel Dissection

AbstractObjective:This trial aimed to compare the guillotine technique of tonsillectomy with ‘cold steel’ dissection, the current ‘gold standard’.Design:A single centre, randomised, controlled trial.Methods:One hundred children aged 3 to 11 years who were listed for bilateral tonsillectomy were recruited. Patients had one tonsil removed by each technique, and were blinded to the side. The operative time, intra-operative blood loss, haemostasis requirement and post-operative pain scores were recorded and compared.Results:Operative time and intra-operative blood loss were both significantly less for the guillotine technique (p < 0.001) and there was a significantly reduced haemostasis requirement (p < 0.001). Pain was also less on the guillotine side (p < 0.001). There were no tonsillar remnants or palatal trauma for either technique. There was no significant difference between techniques in the frequency of secondary haemorrhage.Conclusion:This study provides level Ib evidence that guillotine tonsillectomy in children with mobile tonsils is an effective and time-efficient procedure which produces less intra-operative blood loss and post-operative pain than cold steel dissection.

scholarly journals Use of a Human Patient Simulator to Improve Physiotherapy Cardiorespiratory Clinical Skills in Undergraduate Physiotherapy Students: A Randomised Controlled Trial

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jones ◽  
Lorraine Sheppard
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Simulator Training ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Human Patient ◽  
Patient Simulator ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Human Patient Simulator ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Physiotherapy Students

To investigate whether additional training with a human patient simulator improves cardiorespiratory physiotherapy practice in undergraduate physiotherapy students. Method: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken with 50 third year physiotherapy students from James Cook University, Queensland Australia. Participants in the intervention group underwent two four hour sessions of patient simulator training in addition to their normal cardiorespiratory physiotherapy training prior to attending clinical placements. Participants in both the intervention and control groups were assessed weekly for six weeks on their clinical ability whilst on clinical placement. Results: Mann-Whitney was used to compare the training group with the control group. No significant difference was found between groups.Conclusion: This study indicates that simulation, as undertaken in this manner, does not improve clinical ability in cardiorespiratory physiotherapy. Further studies are needed to determine if more training time is required, or whether simulation must be fully integrated into the curriculum.

scholarly journals Effect of a structured educational intervention on explanatory models of relatives of patients with schizophrenia

2006 ◽  
Vol 188 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Das ◽  
B. Saravanan ◽  
K. P. Karunakaran ◽  
S. Manoranjitham ◽  
P. Ezhilarasu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Educational Programme ◽  
Explanatory Models ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Biomedical Treatment ◽  
Trial Participants

SummaryWe examined the effect of a structured educational programme on explanatory models of illness among the relatives of people with schizophrenia, in a randomised controlled trial. Participants were assessed at baseline (n=100) and after 2 weeks (n=75) using a vignette from the Short Explanatory Model Interview. There was a reduction in non-biomedical causal explanatory models at follow-up among those who had completed the structured educational programme compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in non-biomedical treatment explanatory models between the two groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document