Medicine
Naser Ghorbanian; Mahmood Eidi
Abstract
Introduction: Pharmacological interventions, such as gabapentin, have been utilized to alleviate the symptoms of CTS, but the optimal dosage remains uncertain. This article aims to review and compare the efficacy of two different doses of gabapentin, 100 mg and 300 mg, in the treatment of carpal tunnel ...
Read More
Introduction: Pharmacological interventions, such as gabapentin, have been utilized to alleviate the symptoms of CTS, but the optimal dosage remains uncertain. This article aims to review and compare the efficacy of two different doses of gabapentin, 100 mg and 300 mg, in the treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome. The findings of this review may provide valuable insights for clinicians in selecting the appropriate dosage of gabapentin, balancing the need for pain relief with the potential for adverse effects.Methodology: Following surgery, patients were administered their assigned study medication (100 mg gabapentin, 300 mg gabapentin, or placebo) orally, 1 hour before the procedure. The study medication was prepared by a pharmacist who was not involved in data collection or analysis. Both the patients and the investigators assessing the outcomes were blinded to the treatment assignment.Results: Post hoc analyses using Tukey's test were conducted to assess specific between-group differences in pain scores. At 1 hour postoperative, there was no significant difference in pain scores between the three groups (p>0.05). However, starting from 2 hours postoperative and continuing at all subsequent time points, both the 100 mg and 300 mg gabapentin groups demonstrated significantly lower pain scores compared to the placebo group (p<0.001).Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that both 100 mg and 300 mg doses of gabapentin are effective in reducing postoperative pain following CTS surgery. The 300 mg dose exhibited superior analgesic efficacy compared to the 100 mg dose, as evidenced by significantly lower pain scores and reduced rescue analgesia consumption.
Medicine
Moen Hosein Pour Feyzi; Majid Montazer Bavil Olyaee
Abstract
Introduction: The symptoms of anastomotic leak often appear only at a late stage or are nonspecific, with many different diagnoses and treatments available with no clear consensus on the underlying mechanisms. The purpose of this review is to provide a brief summary of the existing literature on the ...
Read More
Introduction: The symptoms of anastomotic leak often appear only at a late stage or are nonspecific, with many different diagnoses and treatments available with no clear consensus on the underlying mechanisms. The purpose of this review is to provide a brief summary of the existing literature on the definition and classification of thoracic esophagectomy anastomotic leak, its importance and prevalence, as well as the different risk factors, diagnoses and treatments.Material and Methods: Scopus and PubMed electronic databases were searched to identify articles published between 1995 and 2022 on AL after esophagectomy. Terms used include: “anastomotic leak,” “esophageal cancer,” “cervical,” “intrathoracic,” “diagnosis,” “management,” “risk factor,” combined with Boolean “OR” function study Frequent references for further research and related publications are searched. There is limited English language.Results: Anastomotic leak is one of the most common complications after esophagectomy and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Many projects range from small studies to large collaborations aimed at identifying potential preoperative and perioperative risks and improving diagnostic and management procedures. Despite the increase in available data, many aspects of anastomotic leak remain problematic and no general guidelines exist. Conclusion: AL after esophagectomy has many causes, is complex, and can have serious complications that will later affect the outcome. Current treatment is based on an individualized approach and reliable international evidence will help improve the prevention and treatment of AL. Treatment and patient outcomes. Higher quality evidence for such guidelines is urgently needed. The introduction of the ECCG system is a first priority to provide an up-to-date international standard for comparing the results of treatment strategies.
