This paper reports the treatment of oral lymphangiomas with carbon dioxide CO? Laser. Lymphangiomas are rare congenital lymphatic malformations. These lesions are most frequently diagnosed during childhood, are most commonly located in the head and neck region, and are extremely rare in the oral cavity. Oral lymphangiomas are of complex treatment due to the difficulty in performing a complete excision. CO? laser is the most often used laser in the oral cavity due to its affinity with water and high absorption by the oral mucosa. Several benefits of the use of CO? laser have been reported for surgical oral procedures. The cases reported herein were biopsy-proven lymphangiomas of the oral cavity. The surgical procedures were carried out under local anesthesia and a focused CO? laser beam (?10.600 nm, ? ~2 mm, CW/RSP) was used. At the end of the surgery, the laser beam was used on a defocused mode to promote better hemostasis. Neither sutures nor dressings were used after surgery. No medication and only mouthwashes were prescribed to all patients on the postoperative period. There were no postsurgical complaints from the patients and no relapses of the conditions were observed after follow-up periods of 12 and 18 months. The use of CO? laser was practical, easy to carry out and effective on the treatment of oral lymphangiomas, with no lesion recurrence.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Surgical treatment of oral lymphangiomas with CO2 laser: report of two uncommon cases.
Is It Useful to Repeat Sacroiliac Joint Provocative Tests Post‐Block?
Home Help
PUBLICATIONSBROWSE BY SUBJECTRESOURCESABOUT US LOGIN Enter e-mail address Enter password REMEMBER ME NOT REGISTERED ?FORGOTTEN PASSWORD ?INSTITUTIONAL LOGIN > JOURNAL TOOLS Get New Content Alerts Get RSS feed Save to My Profile Get Sample Copy JOURNAL MENU Journal Home FIND ISSUES Current IssueAll IssuesVirtual Issues FIND ARTICLES Early View GET ACCESS Subscribe / Renew FOR CONTRIBUTORS Author GuidelinesSubmit an Article ABOUT THIS JOURNAL Society InformationNewsOverviewEditorial BoardPermissionsAdvertiseContact SPECIAL FEATURES Professional OpportunitiesPainPoints Blog
Is It Useful to Repeat Sacroiliac Joint Provocative Tests Post?Block?Gordon Stanford DC1, Robert S. Burnham MD1,2,*Article first published online: 28 OCT 2010DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00968.xWiley Periodicals, Inc. Issue 
Pain MedicineEarly View (Articles online in advance of print)Additional InformationHow to CiteStanford, G. and Burnham, R. S. , Is It Useful to Repeat Sacroiliac Joint Provocative Tests Post?Block?. Pain Medicine, no. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-4637.2010.00968.xAuthor Information1Central Alberta Pain and Rehabilitation Institute, Lacombe Alberta
2Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Alberta, Edmonton Alberta, Canada
*Correspondence: Robert S. Burnham MD, *Correspondence: Robert Burnham MD, 1, 6220—Highway 2A Lacombe Alberta, T4L 2G5, Canada. Tel: 403?782?6555; Fax: 403?782?6511; E?mail: rburnham@telusplanet.net. Publication HistoryArticle first published online: 28 OCT 2010 SEARCH Search Scope All contentPublication titlesIn this journalIn this issue Search String Advanced >Saved Searches > SEARCH BY CITATION Volume: Issue: Page: ARTICLE TOOLSGet PDF (132K)Save to My ProfileE-mail Link to this ArticleExport Citation for this ArticleRequest Permissions AbstractArticleReferencesCited By View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (132K) Keywords:Back Pain;Sacroiliac JointAbstractObjective.? To evaluate the diagnostic usefulness of repeating sacroiliac joint (SIJ) provocative tests post?block.
Design.? Thirty?four patients with suspected unilateral mechanical SIJ pain participated. Eleven had confirmed SIJ origin pain (>79% pain relief with fluoroscopically guided comparative local anesthetic intra?articular blocks), whereas 23 were confirmed not to have SIJ origin pain (<80% pain relief with a single local anesthetic intra?articular block). Six SIJ provocative tests were performed 30 minutes prior to and following the blocks. Sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios were calculated for subjects who had three or more positive pre?block SIJ provocative tests and for subjects in whom the majority of the SIJ provocative tests converted from positive to negative (normalized) post?block.
Results.? The sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratios for subjects with three or more positive pre?block SIJ provocative tests were 0.82, 0.57, and 1.9, respectively (P?=?0.04). For subjects in whom the majority of the SIJ provocative tests normalized, the sensitivity was 0.89, specificity 0.30, and likelihood ratio 1.3 (P?=?0.3).
Conclusion.? Multiple positive pre?block SIJ provocative tests have diagnostic utility however post?block normalization of SIJ provocative tests does not.
View Full Article (HTML) Get PDF (132K) More content like this Find more content: like this article Find more content written by:Gordon StanfordRobert S. BurnhamAll Authors ABOUT USHELPCONTACT USAGENTSADVERTISERSMEDIAPRIVACYTERMS & CONDITIONSSITE MAPCopyright ? 1999-2010 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All Rights Reserved.