controls) (patients 36.7 +/- 8.6 mm, controls 43.1 +/- 5.8 mm; F=45.41, p = 0.000) and on comparing according to diagnostic categories. MFP explained most AZD2171 of the observed differences in the risk factors: stress perception (OR=1.98; I.C.: 1.01-3.89), psychoactive medication (OR=2.21; I.C.: 1.12-4.37), parafunctions (OR=2.14; I.C.: 1.12-4.11), and ligament laxity (OR=2.6; I.C.: 1.01-6.68). Joint sounds were more frequent in patients with MFP (39.7% vs. 24.0%;.2= 4.66; p=0.03), and painful joint palpation was more common in patients
with disc displacement with reduction (DDWR)(15.9% vs. 5.0%; chi(2) = 5.2; p = 0.02) and osteoarthrosis (20.8% vs. 5.0%; chi(2) = 7.0; p = 0.008).
Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of signs and symptoms of TMDs in the general population. Significant differences are observed in clenching and MAA between patients and controls considered both globally and for each diagnostic category individually. The analyzed risk factors (except loss of posterior
support) show a statistically significant OR for the diagnosis of MFP.”
“Objective: To evaluate whether ligation of the saphenofemoral junction (SFL) improves the results of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) in a 5-year randomised clinical trial (RCT).
Methods: selleck compound Forty-three symptomatic patients (86 limbs) with buy AZD1080 bilateral incompetent GSVs were randomised so that one limb underwent EVLA without SFL and the other limb underwent EVLA with SFL. Eleven patients were lost to follow-up and two patients died, leaving 30 patients (60 limbs) for analysis. Duplex-confirmed groin varicose vein recurrence and venous clinical severity score (VCSS) were investigated at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months after treatment.
Results: Five-year life table analysis showed freedom from groin varicose vein recurrence in 79% of limbs (95% confidence interval (CI); 67-92%) in the EVLA without SFL group and in 65% of limbs (95%; CI; 51-82) in the EVLA with SFL group (P = 0.36). Groin varicose vein recurrence was due to neo-vascularisation
(0%), re-canalisation (9%) and incompetent tributaries in 14% in the EVLA without SFL group, and to neo-vascularisation (33%), re-canalisation (0%) and incompetent tributaries (0%) in the EVLA with SFL group. The VCSS improved significantly and was comparable in both groups.
Conclusion: The rate of varicose vein recurrence was similar in both study groups. There was less neo-vascularisation in the EVLA without SFL group, but more incompetent tributaries and early re-canalisation at 5-year follow-up than in the EVLA with SFL group.
Registration number: ISRCTN60300873 (http://www.clinical-trials.com). (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of European Society for Vascular Surgery.