Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Womens Health ; 22(1): 325, 2022 08 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35918696

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is defined as recurrent or continuous pain in the lower abdomen or pelvis, either non-menstrual or noncyclical, lasting for at least 6 months. There is strong evidence that up to 85% of patients with CPP have serious dysfunctions of the musculoskeletal system, including abdominal myofascial pain syndrome (AMPS). AMPS is characterized by intense and deep abdominal pain, originating from hyperirritable trigger points, usually located within a musculoskeletal band or its lining fascia. In the literature, there are few studies that address AMPS. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of therapeutic ultrasound (TUS) and injection of local anesthetic (IA) to improve pain in women with abdominal myofascial syndrome secondary to CPP. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary University Hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, patients were allocated to two types of treatment: group TUS (n = 18), and group IA (n = 20). The instruments used for evaluation and reassessment were the Visual Analog Scale, Numerical Categorical Scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and SF-36 quality of life assessment questionnaire. They were evaluated before starting treatment, 1 week after the end of treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: TUS and IA were effective in reducing clinical pain and improving quality of life through the variables analyzed among study participants. There was no significant difference between groups. LIMITATIONS: absence of blinding; exclusion of women with comorbidities and other causes of CPP, the absence of a placebo group, the difference between the number of sessions used for each technique, and the COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Treatment with TUS and IA were effective in reducing clinical pain and improving quality of life in women with AMPS secondary to CPP. TRAIL REGISTRATION: We declare that this clinical trial has been registered under the number [(ReBEC) no. RBR-39czsv] on 07/18/2018 in the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Dor Crônica , Síndromes da Dor Miofascial , Abdome , Anestésicos Locais/uso terapêutico , Dor Crônica/etiologia , Dor Crônica/terapia , Feminino , Humanos , Síndromes da Dor Miofascial/tratamento farmacológico , Síndromes da Dor Miofascial/terapia , Dor Pélvica/tratamento farmacológico , Dor Pélvica/terapia , Qualidade de Vida , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34589662

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Germline testing (GT) for prostate cancer (PCA) is now central to treatment and hereditary cancer assessment. With rising demand for and shortage of genetic counseling (GC), tools to deliver pretest informed consent across practice settings are needed to improve access to GT and precision care. Here, we report on Evaluation and Management for Prostate Oncology, Wellness, and Risk (EMPOWER), a patient-choice study for pretest video-based genetic education (VBGE) versus GC to inform urgent practice needs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with PCA or at risk for PCA (family history of PCA) were eligible and could choose pretest VBGE or GC. Outcomes included decisional conflict for GT, change in genetics knowledge, satisfaction, and intention to share results with family and/or providers. Descriptive statistics summarized results with counts and percentages for categorical variables and mean ± standard deviation for continuous variables. Data were compared with Fisher's exact, chi-squared, or Wilcoxon two-sample tests. Mean change in genetics knowledge was compared with t tests. The significance level was set a priori at .05. RESULTS: Data on the first 127 participants were analyzed. Characteristics were White (85.8%), bachelor's degree (66.9%), and PCA diagnosis (90.6%). The majority chose VBGE (71%) versus GC (29%; P < .001). No differences were observed in decisional conflict for GT or satisfaction. Cancer genetics knowledge improved in both groups without significant difference (+0.9 VBGE, +1.8 GC, P = .056). Men who chose VBGE had higher intention to share GT results (96.4% VBGE v 86.4% GC, P = .02). Both groups had high rates of GT uptake (VBGE 94.4%, GC 92%). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of men opted for pretest VBGE, with comparable patient-reported outcomes and uptake of GT. The results support the use of pretest video to address the critical GC shortage in the precision era.


Assuntos
Comportamento de Escolha , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/normas , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Idoso , Distribuição de Qui-Quadrado , Aconselhamento Genético/métodos , Aconselhamento Genético/psicologia , Aconselhamento Genético/normas , Predisposição Genética para Doença , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/métodos , Neoplasias da Próstata/genética , Inquéritos e Questionários
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA