12 research outputs found
Shear resistance of expensive concrete beams reinforced with FRP longitudinal bars
No full textThis paper presents the results of testing beams reinforced with FRP in combination with expansive concrete. Failure modes under uniformly distributed loading and ultimate forces recorded in tests are described. The results of comparison of shear resistance models against the background of experimental data are presented
Modelling of the shear resistance of self-stressed beams reinforced with FRP applying the Critical Shear Crack Theory
No full textThis paper presents a mechanical model of the shear resistance based on Critical Shear Crack Theory (CSCT) and its application for the checking of the shear ultimate state of self-stressed elements reinforced with FRP bars. The shear force, which is transmitted through the inclined crack by aggregate interlock, residual tensile strength, dowel action and inclined chord of the compression concrete, is calculated depending on the value of the inclined crack opening, determined according to the modified law “bond-slip” for FRP bars. The reliability of the proposed approach is confirmed by comparison both with the results of our own experimental investigations and with numerous research results by various authors
Minimally invasive treatment of intrahepatic cholangiolithiasis after stricture of hepaticojejunal anastomosis
No full textDouble balloon enteroscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of chronic pancreatitis surgery complications
No full text
Hypervascularisation of colonic graft for oesophageal replacement: literature review and own experience
No full textColonic interposition in post-burn oesophageal strictures still remains a challenge. The main issue is the viability of the cervical portion of the colonic graft. The article provides a literature review on mesentericography and hypervascularisation of colonic graft for oesophageal replacement. The authors share their own experience. The study of the colic arterial anatomy enables one to choose its more perfused portion for oesophageal replacement. In insufficient blood supply, direct anastomoses with cervical or internal thoracic vessels have been proposed for hypervascularisation of the cervical part of graft. The technique of vessel ligation with a subsequent intensive collateral blood flow has been designed for hypervascularisation of the colonic graft
Hypervascularisation of colonic graft for oesophageal replacement: literature review and own experience
No full textThe role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis
No full textBackground & Aims: Interobserver differences in endoscopic assessments contribute to variations in rates of response to placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) trials. We investigated whether centralized review of images could reduce these variations. Methods: We performed a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 281 patients with mildly to moderately active UC, defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) sigmoidoscopy score ?2, that evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 800-mg tablet) 4.8 g/day. Endoscopic images were reviewed by a single expert central reader. The primary outcome was clinical remission (UCDAI, stool frequency and bleeding scores of 0, and no fecal urgency) at week 6. Results: The primary outcome was achieved by 30.0% of patients treated with mesalamine and 20.6% of those given placebo, a difference of 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7% to 19.4%; P =.069). Significant differences in results from secondary analyses indicated the efficacy of mesalamine. Thirty-one percent of participants, all of whom had a UCDAI sigmoidoscopy score ?2 as read by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader. After exclusion of these patients, the remission rates were 29.0% and 13.8% in the mesalamine and placebo groups, respectively (difference of 15%; 95% CI, 3.5%-26.0%; P =.011). Conclusions: Although mesalamine 4.8 g/day was not statistically different from placebo for induction of remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data supports a benefit of treatment. Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the conduct of induction studies in UC; ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT01059344. © 2013 by the AGA Institute.City, University of London, City: 1; City, University of London, City; Ankara UniversitesiDr Yury Marakhouski, City Clinical Hospital No. 1, Minsk, Belarus; Dr Leanid Sapeha and Dr Sergei Pimanov, Vitebsk Regional Clinical Hospital, Vitebsk, Belarus; Dr Valerii Rusinovich, Klumov City Clinical Hospital, Minsk, Belarus; Dr Elena Mikhailova, Gomel Regional Clinical Hospital, Gomel, Belarus; Dr Aliaksandr Varabei, Minsk Regional Clinical Hospital, Minsk, Belarus; Dr Mykhailo Zakharash, Clinical Hospital of Security Service of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine; Dr Olena Levchenko, Odessa Regional Clinical Hospital, Odessa, Ukraine; Dr Yuriy Lozynskyy, Lviv State Danylo Galytski Medical University/Lviv Regional Clinical Hospital, Lviv, Ukraine; Dr Oleksiy Datsenko, Kharkov City Clinical Hospital, Odessa, Ukraine; Dr Yuriy Stepanov, Dniepropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dniepropetrovsk, Ukraine; Dr Anatoliy Svintsitskyy, O O Bogomolets National Medical University, Kiev, Ukraine; Dr Vasyl Neyko, Ivano-Frankivsk State Medical University, Ivan-Frankivsk, Ukraine; Dr Nataliya Kharchenko, Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kiev, Ukraine; Dr Ilkay Simsek, Dokuz Eylul University Medical School, Izmir, Turkey; Dr Belkis Unsal, Izmir Ataturk Egitim ve Arastirma Hospital, Izmir, Turkey; Dr Candan Tuncer, Gazi University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey; Dr Murat Toruner, Ankara University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey; Dr Bulent Sivri, Hacettepe University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey; Dr Abdurrahman Kadayifci, University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep, Turkey; Dr Canan Alkim, Sisli Etfal Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey; Dr Vedat Goral, Dicle University Medical School, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Dr Ahmet Tezel, Trakya University Medical Faculty, Edirne, Turkey; Dr Bonthala Subbaraj Sathyaprakash, Ramajah Medical College & Hospital, Bangalore, India; Dr Boddu Prabhakar, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, India; Dr Malladi Uma Devi, Medwin Hospitals, Hyderabad, India; Dr Kotacherry Trivikrama Shenoy, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research, Kerala, India; Dr Mukesh Kalla, S.R. Kalla Memorial Gastro & General Hospital, Rajasthan, India; Dr Janaviculam Sankaran Rajkumar, Life Line Hospitals, Tamilnadu, India; Dr Premashish Kar, Maulana Azad Medical College & Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India. Supplementary Figure 1 Patient disposition. Supplementary Table 1 Site and Central Reader Endoscopic Assessments Jurisdiction Belarus (n = 91) India (n = 56) Turkey (n = 24) Ukraine (n = 108) Total (N = 279) Visit Screening Downgrade a 32 (35.2) 24 (42.9) 7 (29.2) 35 (32.4) 98 (35.2) Upgrade b 22 (24.2) 7 (12.5) 6 (25.0) 22 (20.4) 57 (20.4) Same 37 (40.6) 25 (44.6) 11 (45.8) 51 (47.2) 124 (44.4) Downgrade/upgrade ratio 1.45 3.43 1.12 1.59 Belarus (n = 80) India (n = 42) Turkey (n = 16) Ukraine (n = 79) Total (N = 217) Week 6 Downgrade 32 (40.0) 7 (16.7) 4 (25.0) 12 (15.2) 55 (25.3) Upgrade 9 (11.2) 5 (11.9) 2 (12.5) 13 (16.5) 29 (13.4) Same 39 (48.8) 30 (71.4) 10 (62.5) 54 (68.3) 13 (61.3) Downgrade/upgrade ratio 3.56 1.40 2.00 0.92 Belarus (n = 78) India (n = 40) Turkey (n = 16) Ukraine (n = 75) Total (N = 209) Week 10 Downgrade 20 (25.6) 2 (5.0) 0 (0) 5 (6.7) 27 (12.9) Upgrade 8 (10.3) 4 (10.0) 2 (12.5) 9 (12.0) 23 (11.0) Same 50 (64.1) 34 (85.0) 14 (87.5) 61 (81.3) 159 (76.1) Downgrade/upgrade ratio 2.50 2.00 0.05 0.56 NOTE. Values are expressed as n (%). A downgrade/upgrade ratio of 1 is consistent with random disagreement in distinction to systemic disagreement. a The site reader's score was higher than the central reader's score. b The site reader's score was lower than the central reader's score
The role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis
No full textBackground & Aims: Interobserver differences in endoscopic assessments contribute to variations in rates of response to placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) trials. We investigated whether centralized review of images could reduce these variations. Methods: We performed a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 281 patients with mildly to moderately active UC, defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) sigmoidoscopy score ?2, that evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 800-mg tablet) 4.8 g/day. Endoscopic images were reviewed by a single expert central reader. The primary outcome was clinical remission (UCDAI, stool frequency and bleeding scores of 0, and no fecal urgency) at week 6. Results: The primary outcome was achieved by 30.0% of patients treated with mesalamine and 20.6% of those given placebo, a difference of 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7% to 19.4%; P =.069). Significant differences in results from secondary analyses indicated the efficacy of mesalamine. Thirty-one percent of participants, all of whom had a UCDAI sigmoidoscopy score ?2 as read by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader. After exclusion of these patients, the remission rates were 29.0% and 13.8% in the mesalamine and placebo groups, respectively (difference of 15%; 95% CI, 3.5%-26.0%; P =.011). Conclusions: Although mesalamine 4.8 g/day was not statistically different from placebo for induction of remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data supports a benefit of treatment. Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the conduct of induction studies in UC; ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT01059344.City, University of London, City: 1; Ankara UniversitesiDr Yury Marakhouski, City Clinical Hospital No. 1, Minsk, Belarus; Dr Leanid Sapeha and Dr Sergei Pimanov, Vitebsk Regional Clinical Hospital, Vitebsk, Belarus; Dr Valerii Rusinovich, Klumov City Clinical Hospital, Minsk, Belarus; Dr Elena Mikhailova, Gomel Regional Clinical Hospital, Gomel, Belarus; Dr Aliaksandr Varabei, Minsk Regional Clinical Hospital, Minsk, Belarus; Dr Mykhailo Zakharash, Clinical Hospital of Security Service of Ukraine, Kiev, Ukraine; Dr Olena Levchenko, Odessa Regional Clinical Hospital, Odessa, Ukraine; Dr Yuriy Lozynskyy, Lviv State Danylo Galytski Medical University/Lviv Regional Clinical Hospital, Lviv, Ukraine; Dr Oleksiy Datsenko, Kharkov City Clinical Hospital, Odessa, Ukraine; Dr Yuriy Stepanov, Dniepropetrovsk State Medical Academy, Dniepropetrovsk, Ukraine; Dr Anatoliy Svintsitskyy, O O Bogomolets National Medical University, Kiev, Ukraine; Dr Vasyl Neyko, Ivano-Frankivsk State Medical University, Ivan-Frankivsk, Ukraine; Dr Nataliya Kharchenko, Kyiv Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education, Kiev, Ukraine; Dr Ilkay Simsek, Dokuz Eylul University Medical School, Izmir, Turkey; Dr Belkis Unsal, Izmir Ataturk Egitim ve Arastirma Hospital, Izmir, Turkey; Dr Candan Tuncer, Gazi University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey; Dr Murat Toruner, Ankara University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey; Dr Bulent Sivri, Hacettepe University Medical School, Ankara, Turkey; Dr Abdurrahman Kadayifci, University of Gaziantep, Gaziantep, Turkey; Dr Canan Alkim, Sisli Etfal Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey; Dr Vedat Goral, Dicle University Medical School, Diyarbakir, Turkey; Dr Ahmet Tezel, Trakya University Medical Faculty, Edirne, Turkey; Dr Bonthala Subbaraj Sathyaprakash, Ramajah Medical College & Hospital, Bangalore, India; Dr Boddu Prabhakar, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, India; Dr Malladi Uma Devi, Medwin Hospitals, Hyderabad, India; Dr Kotacherry Trivikrama Shenoy, Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research, Kerala, India; Dr Mukesh Kalla, S.R. Kalla Memorial Gastro & General Hospital, Rajasthan, India; Dr Janaviculam Sankaran Rajkumar, Life Line Hospitals, Tamilnadu, India; Dr Premashish Kar, Maulana Azad Medical College & Associated Lok Nayak Hospital, New Delhi, India. Supplementary Figure 1 Patient disposition. Supplementary Table 1 Site and Central Reader Endoscopic Assessments Jurisdiction Belarus (n = 91) India (n = 56) Turkey (n = 24) Ukraine (n = 108) Total (N = 279) Visit Screening Downgrade a 32 (35.2) 24 (42.9) 7 (29.2) 35 (32.4) 98 (35.2) Upgrade b 22 (24.2) 7 (12.5) 6 (25.0) 22 (20.4) 57 (20.4) Same 37 (40.6) 25 (44.6) 11 (45.8) 51 (47.2) 124 (44.4) Downgrade/upgrade ratio 1.45 3.43 1.12 1.59 Belarus (n = 80) India (n = 42) Turkey (n = 16) Ukraine (n = 79) Total (N = 217) Week 6 Downgrade 32 (40.0) 7 (16.7) 4 (25.0) 12 (15.2) 55 (25.3) Upgrade 9 (11.2) 5 (11.9) 2 (12.5) 13 (16.5) 29 (13.4) Same 39 (48.8) 30 (71.4) 10 (62.5) 54 (68.3) 13 (61.3) Downgrade/upgrade ratio 3.56 1.40 2.00 0.92 Belarus (n = 78) India (n = 40) Turkey (n = 16) Ukraine (n = 75) Total (N = 209) Week 10 Downgrade 20 (25.6) 2 (5.0) 0 (0) 5 (6.7) 27 (12.9) Upgrade 8 (10.3) 4 (10.0) 2 (12.5) 9 (12.0) 23 (11.0) Same 50 (64.1) 34 (85.0) 14 (87.5) 61 (81.3) 159 (76.1) Downgrade/upgrade ratio 2.50 2.00 0.05 0.56 NOTE. Values are expressed as n (%). A downgrade/upgrade ratio of 1 is consistent with random disagreement in distinction to systemic disagreement. a The site reader's score was higher than the central reader's score. b The site reader's score was lower than the central reader's score
The role of centralized reading of endoscopy in a randomized controlled trial of mesalamine for ulcerative colitis
No full textBackground & Aims: Interobserver differences in endoscopic assessments contribute to variations in rates of response to placebo in ulcerative colitis (UC) trials. We investigated whether centralized review of images could reduce these variations. Methods: We performed a 10-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of 281 patients with mildly to moderately active UC, defined by an Ulcerative Colitis Disease Activity Index (UCDAI) sigmoidoscopy score ≥2, that evaluated the efficacy of delayed-release mesalamine (Asacol 800-mg tablet) 4.8 g/day. Endoscopic images were reviewed by a single expert central reader. The primary outcome was clinical remission (UCDAI, stool frequency and bleeding scores of 0, and no fecal urgency) at week 6. Results: The primary outcome was achieved by 30.0% of patients treated with mesalamine and 20.6% of those given placebo, a difference of 9.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.7% to 19.4%; P =.069). Significant differences in results from secondary analyses indicated the efficacy of mesalamine. Thirty-one percent of participants, all of whom had a UCDAI sigmoidoscopy score ≥2 as read by the site investigator, were considered ineligible by the central reader. After exclusion of these patients, the remission rates were 29.0% and 13.8% in the mesalamine and placebo groups, respectively (difference of 15%; 95% CI, 3.5%-26.0%; P =.011). Conclusions: Although mesalamine 4.8 g/day was not statistically different from placebo for induction of remission in patients with mildly to moderately active UC, based on an intent-to-treat analysis, the totality of the data supports a benefit of treatment. Central review of endoscopic images is critical to the conduct of induction studies in UC; ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT01059344. © 2013 by the AGA Institute
