This was compared per procedure and in terms of total system reimbursement for each approach to obtain a similar resolution rate.
Results: A total of 209 consecutive patients were identified, of whom 26 underwent subureteral Deflux injection and 183 underwent unilateral extravesical reimplantation. Mean operative time was 93 minutes for reimplantation and 45 minutes for injection. The mean volume
of dextranomer-hyaluronic acid was 1.2 ml. Total initial system reimbursement per patient was $3,813 for reimplantation and $4,259 for injection. A 3% hospital admission rate for reimplantation increased the total to $3,945. Higher reimbursement for injection depended largely on the material expense for dextranomer-hyaluronic acid.
Conclusions: In terms of total system reimbursement it is less expensive in our system PF-562271 supplier to treat unilateral vesicoureteral reflux with unilateral extravesical reimplantation than with subureteral Deflux injection using dextranomer-hyaluronic SB431542 molecular weight acid. The ability to perform unilateral reimplantation as an outpatient procedure has shifted this relationship.”
“OBJECTIVE: Fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomographic (PET) imaging plays an important role in the evaluation of intractable epilepsy. The metabolic defect has proven
utility in the lateralization of temporal lobe epilepsy. However, the role of FDG-PET imaging in the localization of a seizure focus within the temporal lobe is uncertain. We evaluated FDG-PET imaging for the capability to localize a temporal seizure focus within the mesial structures.
METHODS: Twenty-eight patients who underwent selective amygdalohippocampectomy for intractable temporal lobe epilepsy were studied. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who were free of seizures (FS) and those with persisting seizures postoperatively. FS patients were
defined by having mesial temporal lobe epilepsy (MTLE). Preoperative FDG-PET activity was evaluated in temporal Selleck Volasertib lobe structures and contrasted with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for usefulness in identifying MTLE in an individual.
RESULTS: Pathology of the hippocampus revealed mesial temporal sclerosis in all but I patient. Qualitative visual inspection of the MRI scan was not reliable in the identification of MTLE (P = 0.15). MRI volumetry found smaller mesial temporal structures (P = 0.04) in FS patients. Mesial temporal metabolic activity was reduced in the FS group (hippocampus, P = 0.001). However, a combination of imaging modalities was found to be the best predictor of MTLE. PET imaging plus MRI qualitative inspection identified all patients with and without MTLE correctly and was superior to MRI alone (P = 0.01 and P = 0.02, respectively).
CONCLUSION: MRI volumetry and PET imaging were comparable (P = 0.73) and able to identify MTLE in most patients, but a combination of PET imaging and MRI visual inspection was superior in the recognition of MTLE.