Search results for: K. M. El-Naggar

Authors: Nadeen Eltoukhy, Sahar S. Sheta, Walaa Elnaggar, Karim Bakr

Abstract:

Purpose: The aim of this study is to compare the clinical efficacy and side effects of oral versus intralesional propranolol treatment of infantile capillary hemangiomas in infants. Methods: The study enrolled 40 infants diagnosed with infantile capillary hemangiomas. Patients were divided into 2 groups: Group A (Non-invasive group) included 20 infants who received oral propranolol hydrochloride starting at a dose of 1 mg/kg/day BID, then increased to a max of 2 mg/kg/day BID gradually over 2 weeks for 3 months. Group B (Invasive group) included 20 infants who received intralesional propranolol injection at a dose of 1 mg/mL; the volume of the injected drug depended on the size of the lesion (0.2 mL injected per cm of lesion diameter), with a maximum volume of 1 mL for a lesion of 5 cm diameter under complete aseptic conditions in the operating theater. Results: At three months after initiating treatment, the circumferential size of the hemangioma showed a statistically significant decrease in both groups; in Group A from 3.66±2.89 cm to 1.56±1.26 cm with p-value <0.05 and in Group B from 2.99±2.73 cm to 1.32±1.18 cm with p-value <0.05. There is no statistically significant comparative difference between the two groups (p-value = 0.538 = insignificant). Regarding the complications of oral propranolol, one patient (5%) had bradycardia, and one patient (5%) had diarrhea. In the injection group, 20 patients (100%) had local edema, and one patient (5%) had a local infection. Conclusions: Both oral non-invasive and intralesional invasive propranolol are safely used to successfully treat and decrease the size of infantile hemangioma while showing no statistically comparative difference between both treatment techniques.

Keywords: hemangioma, oral beta blocker, intralesional beta blocker, infants

Procedia PDF Downloads 25

Authors: Ahmed R. Z. Baghdadi, Ibrahim M. I. Hamoda,  Mona H. Gamal Eldein, Ibrahim Magdy Elnaggar

Abstract:

Background: High-velocity low amplitude thrust (HVLAT) manipulation and low-velocity low amplitude (LVLA) mobilization are an effective treatment for low back pain (LBP). Purpose: This study compared the effects of HVLAT versus LVLA on pain, functional deficits and segmental mobility in treatment of chronic mechanical LBP. Methods: Ninety patients suffering from chronic mechanical LBP are classified to three groups; Thirty patients treated by HVLAT (group I), thirty patients treated by LVLA (group II) and thirty patients as control group (group III) participated in the study. The mean age was 28.00±2.92, 27.83±2.28 and 28.07±3.05 years and BMI 27.98±2.60, 28.80±2.40 and 28.70±2.53 kg/m2 for group I, II and III respectively. The Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), the Oswestry low back pain disability questionnaire and modified schoper test were used for assessment. Assessments were conducted two weeks before and after treatment with the control group being assessed at the same time intervals. The treatment program group one was two weeks single session per week, and for group II two sessions per week for two weeks. Results: The One-way ANOVA revealed that group I had significantly lower pain scores and Oswestry score compared with group II two weeks after treatment. Moreover, the mobility in modified schoper increased significantly and the pain scores and Oswestry scores decreased significantly after treatment in group I and II compared with control group. Interpretation/Conclusion: HVLAT is preferable to LVLA mobilization, possibly due to a beneficial neurophysiological effect by Stimulating mechanically sensitive neurons in the lumbar facet joint capsule.

Keywords: low back pain, manipulation, mobilization, low velocity

Procedia PDF Downloads 562