Dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail versus the classic sliding hip screw for the stabilization of intertrochanteric fractures. A prospective randomized study

This study is a randomized prospective study comparing two fracture fixation implants, the extramedullary sliding hip screw (SHS) and the dual lag screw cephalomedullary nail, in the treatment of intertrochanteric femoral fractures in the elderly. One hundred and sixty-five patients with low-energy intertrochanteric fractures, classified as AO/OTA 31A, were prospectively included during a 2-year period (2005-2006). Patients were randomized into two groups: group A included 79 hip fractures managed with sliding hip screws and group B included 86 fractures treated with cephalomedullary nails. Delay to surgery, duration of surgery, time of fluoroscopy, total hospital stay, implant-related complications, transfusion requirements, re-operation details, functional recovery, and mortality were recorded. The mean follow-up was 36 months (24-56 months). The mean surgical time was statistically significantly shorter and fluoroscopy time longer for the group B. No intraoperative femoral shaft fractures occurred. There was no statistically significant difference in the functional recovery score, reoperation, and mortality rates between the 2 groups. A new type of complication, the so-called Z-effect phenomenon, was noticed in the cephalomedullary nail group. There are no statistically significant differences between the two techniques in terms of type and rate of complications, functional outcome, reoperation and mortality rates when comparing the SHS and the cephalomedullary nail for low-energy AO/OTA 31A intertrochanteric fractures. Our data do not support recommendations for the use of one implant over the other.

Long-term omalizumab treatment in severe allergic asthma: the South-Eastern Mediterranean "real-life" experience

BACKGROUND

Omalizumab is a recombinant humanized anti-IgE monoclonal antibody indicated as an add-on treatment for severe allergic asthma, inadequately controlled despite high dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and long-acting b2-agonists.

OBJECTIVES

Medical registries were used to evaluate the 4 months, 1 and 4 years effectiveness of omalizumab treatment, in a non-interventional, observational "real-life" study.

METHODS

Sixty patients with severe persistent allergic asthma from 5 South-Eastern Mediterranean centres from Crete and Cyprus were evaluated. Effectiveness outcomes included spirometry, severe asthma exacerbations rate, level of asthma control (ACT), and additional asthma medication (inhaled steroids).

RESULTS

Outcome variables improved after 4 months and sustained after 1 and 4 years treatment with Omalizumab. FEV1 improved statistically significant at all time points versus baseline [ΔFEV1 (% pred.) = +21 p = 0.008 at 4 months, ΔFEV1 (% pred.) = +24.5 p < 0.0001 at 4 years after treatment]. Similarly, FVC increased statistically significant versus baseline [ΔFVC (% pred.) = +20 p = 0.002 at 4 months, ΔFVC (% pred.) = +22.6 p = 0.0002 at 4 years]. The level of asthma control as evaluated by ACT was significantly improved after treatment (+12% p = 0.001 at 4 months, +24% p < 0.0001 at 4 years). Omalizumab treatment reduced significantly asthma exacerbations rate (-65% p = 0.0002 at 1 year, and -70% p < 0.0001 at 4 years). The use of inhaled steroids decreased statistically significant after 4 months (p = 0.017), 1 year (p = 0.029) and 4 years (p = 0.014) of omalizumab treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This long-term "real-life" study demonstrated significant improvement in lung function and other clinical outcomes after omalizumab treatment, evident at 4 months, and sustained after 1 and 4 years suggesting its efficacy in severe allergic asthma, in the "real-life" practice.