Practical handling of AIO admixtures - Guidelines on Parenteral Nutrition, Chapter 10

All-in-one admixtures (AIO-admixtures) provide safe, effective and low-risk PN (parenteral nutrition) for practically all indications and applications. Water, energy (carbohydrates and lipids), amino acids, vitamins and trace elements are infused together with PN either as industrially-manufactured AIO admixtures provided as two- or three-chamber bags (shelf life usually more than 12 months) completed with electrolytes and micronutrients where appropriate or as individually compounded ready-to-use AIO admixtures (compounding, usually prepared by a pharmacy on either a daily or weekly basis and stored at 2-8 degrees C). Physico-chemical and microbial stability of an AIO admixture is essential for the safety and effectiveness of patient-specific PN, and its assurance requires specialist pharmaceutical knowledge. The stability should be documented for an application period of 24 (-48) hours. It is advisable to offer a limited selection of different PN regimes in each hospital. For reasons of drug and medication safety, PN admixtures prepared for individual patients must be correctly labelled and specifications for storage conditions must also be followed during transport. Monitoring is required where applicable. Micronutrients are usually administered separately to AIO admixtures. In case compatibility and stability have been well documented trace elements and/or combination preparations including water-soluble or water-soluble/fat soluble vitamin supplements can be added to PN admixtures under strict aseptic conditions. AIO admixtures are usually not used as vehicles for drugs (incompatibilities).

Learning for Sustainability - LforS: Training modules and workshop guidelines

Description of LforS training modules and guidelines for moderators.

Use of EORTC Target Definition Guidelines for Dose-Intensified Salvage Radiation Therapy for Recurrent Prostate Cancer: Results of the Quality Assurance Program of the Randomized Trial SAKK 09/10

PURPOSE Different international target volume delineation guidelines exist and different treatment techniques are available for salvage radiation therapy (RT) for recurrent prostate cancer, but less is known regarding their respective applicability in clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS A randomized phase III trial testing 64 Gy vs 70 Gy salvage RT was accompanied by an intense quality assurance program including a site-specific and study-specific questionnaire and a dummy run (DR). Target volume delineation was performed according to the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines, and a DR-based treatment plan was established for 70 Gy. Major and minor protocol deviations were noted, interobserver agreement of delineated target contours was assessed, and dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters of different treatment techniques were compared. RESULTS Thirty European centers participated, 43% of which were using 3-dimensional conformal RT (3D-CRT), with the remaining centers using intensity modulated RT (IMRT) or volumetric modulated arc technique (VMAT). The first submitted version of the DR contained major deviations in 21 of 30 (70%) centers, mostly caused by inappropriately defined or lack of prostate bed (PB). All but 5 centers completed the DR successfully with their second submitted version. The interobserver agreement of the PB was moderate and was improved by the DR review, as indicated by an increased κ value (0.59 vs 0.55), mean sensitivity (0.64 vs 0.58), volume of total agreement (3.9 vs 3.3 cm(3)), and decrease in the union volume (79.3 vs 84.2 cm(3)). Rectal and bladder wall DVH parameters of IMRT and VMAT vs 3D-CRT plans were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS The interobserver agreement of PB delineation was moderate but was improved by the DR. Major deviations could be identified for the majority of centers. The DR has improved the acquaintance of the participating centers with the trial protocol.

Positional guidelines for orthodontic mini-implant placement in the anterior alveolar region: a systematic review

PURPOSE To investigate the adequacy of potential sites for insertion of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) in the anterior alveolar region (delimited by the first premolars) through a systematic review of studies that used computed tomography (CT) or cone beam CT (CBCT) to assess anatomical hard tissue parameters, such as bone thickness, available space, and bone density. MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify all relevant papers published between 1980 and September 2011. An extensive search strategy was performed that included the key words "computerized (computed) tomography" and "mini-implants." Information was extracted from the eligible articles for three anatomical areas: maxillary anterior buccal, maxillary anterior palatal, and mandibular anterior buccal. Quantitative data obtained for each anatomical variable under study were evaluated qualitatively with a scoring system. RESULTS Of the 790 articles identified by the search, 8 were eligible to be included in the study. The most favorable area for OMI insertion in the anterior maxilla (buccally and palatally) and mandible is between the canine and the first premolar. The best alternative area in the maxilla (buccally) and the mandible is between the lateral incisor and the canine, while in the maxillary palatal area it is between the central incisors or between the lateral incisor and the canine. CONCLUSIONS Although there is considerable heterogeneity among studies, there is a good level of agreement regarding the optimal site for OMI placement in the anterior region among investigations of anatomical hard tissue parameters based on CT or CBCT scans. In this context, the area between the lateral incisor and the first premolar is the most favorable. However, interroot distance seems to be a critical factor that should be evaluated carefully.

EAU guidelines on surgical treatment of urinary incontinence

CONTEXT The European Association of Urology (EAU) guidelines on urinary incontinence published in March 2012 have been rewritten based on an independent systematic review carried out by the EAU guidelines panel using a sustainable methodology. OBJECTIVE We present a short version here of the full guidelines on the surgical treatment of patients with urinary incontinence, with the aim of dissemination to a wider audience. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Evidence appraisal included a pragmatic review of existing systematic reviews and independent new literature searches based on Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) questions. The appraisal of papers was carried out by an international panel of experts, who also collaborated in a series of consensus discussions, to develop concise structured evidence summaries and action-based recommendations using a modified Oxford system. EVIDENCE SUMMARY The full version of the guidance is available online (www.uroweb.org/guidelines/online-guidelines/). The guidance includes algorithms that refer the reader back to the supporting evidence and have greater accessibility in daily clinical practice. Two original meta-analyses were carried out specifically for these guidelines and are included in this report. CONCLUSIONS These new guidelines present an up-to-date summary of the available evidence, together with clear clinical algorithms and action-based recommendations based on the best available evidence. Where high-level evidence is lacking, they present a consensus of expert panel opinion.