A new alternative method for testing skin irritation using a human skin model: a pilot study.

Studies assessing skin irritation to chemicals have traditionally used laboratory animals; however, such methods are questionable regarding their relevance for humans. New in vitro methods have been validated, such as the reconstructed human epidermis (RHE) model (Episkin®, Epiderm®). The comparison (accuracy) with in vivo results such as the 4-h human patch test (HPT) is 76% at best (Epiderm®). There is a need to develop an in vitro method that better simulates the anatomo-pathological changes encountered in vivo. To develop an in vitro method to determine skin irritation using human viable skin through histopathology, and compare the results of 4 tested substances to the main in vitro methods and in vivo animal method (Draize test). Human skin removed during surgery was dermatomed and mounted on an in vitro flow-through diffusion cell system. Ten chemicals with known non-irritant (heptylbutyrate, hexylsalicylate, butylmethacrylate, isoproturon, bentazon, DEHP and methylisothiazolinone (MI)) and irritant properties (folpet, 1-bromohexane and methylchloroisothiazolinone (MCI/MI)), a negative control (sodiumchloride) and a positive control (sodiumlaurylsulphate) were applied. The skin was exposed at least for 4h. Histopathology was performed to investigate irritation signs (spongiosis, necrosis, vacuolization). We obtained 100% accuracy with the HPT model; 75% with the RHE models and 50% with the Draize test for 4 tested substances. The coefficients of variation (CV) between our three test batches were <0.1, showing good reproducibility. Furthermore, we reported objectively histopathological irritation signs (irritation scale): strong (folpet), significant (1-bromohexane), slight (MCI/MI at 750/250ppm) and none (isoproturon, bentazon, DEHP and MI). This new in vitro test method presented effective results for the tested chemicals. It should be further validated using a greater number of substances; and tested in different laboratories in order to suitably evaluate reproducibility.

Cost-effectivness in a DRG system for two-step exchange of infected total joint arthroplasty

The costs related to the treatment of infected total joint arthroplasties represent an ever groving burden to the society. Different patient-adapted therapeutic options like débridement and retention, 1- or 2-step exchange can be used. If a 2-step exchange is used we have to consider short (2-4 weeks) or long (>4-6 weeks) interval treatment. The Swiss DRG (Diagnose related Groups) determines the reimboursement the hopsital receives for the treatment of an infected total arthroplasty. The review assesses the cost-effectiveness of hospitalisation practices linked to surgical treatment in the two-stage exchange of a prosthetic-joint infection. The aim of this retrospectiv study is to compare the economical impact between a short (2 to 4 weeks) versus a long (6 weeks and above) interval during a two-satge procedure to determine the financial impact. Retrospectiv study of the patients with a two-stage procedure for a hip or knee prosthetic joint infection at CHUV hospital Lausanne (Switzerland) between 2012 and 2013. The review analyses the correlation between the interval length and the length of the hospital stay as well as with the costs and revenues per hospital stay. In average there is a loss of 40′000 Euro per hospitalisation for the treatment of prosthetic joint infection. Revenues never cover all the costs, even with a short interval procedure. This economical loss increases with the length of the hospital stay if a long-term intervall is choosen. The review explores potential for improvement in reimbourement practices and hospitalisation practices in the current Swiss healthcare setting. There should be alternative setups to decrease the burden of medical costs by a) increase the reimboursment for the treatment of infected total joints or by b) splitting the hospital stay with partners (rapid transfer after first operation from center hospital to level 2 hospital and retransfer for second operation to center) in order to increase revenues.