PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

R M Gallagher

Publications and source records attributed to R M Gallagher.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

Reconstruction of the trachea with a tubed radial forearm free flap.

BACKGROUND: We present the case of a patient with adenoid cystic carcinoma of the trachea who had 60 mm of the trachea excised and reconstructed with a stented radial forearm free flap. The patient was well in the immediate postoperative period with good function of the neotrachea. Problems developing after the reconstruction included proximal stricture, sputum retention, and recurrent pneumonia. RESULT: The patient died of malignant hypercalcemia 16 months after the reconstruction. To our knowledge this is the first reported case of a total tracheal resection and reconstruction with a combination of free tissue transfer and internal stenting. CONCLUSION: We conclude that tracheal reconstruction has the potential to provide a reliable airway in patients not able to be reconstructed with a primary anastomosis.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Comparative study of a combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate in the treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen to sumatriptan succinate for the treatment of mild-to-moderate migraine, with or without aura, when taken at the first sign of an attack. BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration approved sumatriptan succinate and the combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen for the treatment of migraine. As part of the stratified treatment of migraine, those patients whose headaches are mild or moderate may benefit from nontriptan medications. Additionally, early treatment of acute migraine before the headache has become moderate or severe may improve response to treatment. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination of isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate in the early stages of a single migraine attack. Patients diagnosed with migraine, with or without aura, as defined by the International Headache Society diagnostic criteria were enrolled. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the study. Data for efficacy were available for 126 patients; safety data were available for 128 patients. No statistically significant difference between the two active agents in the patient's response to treatment was demonstrated. Headache recurrence was not significantly different over the 24-hour evaluation period for those patients responding in the first 4 hours. In those with headache recurrence, it was statistically significantly more severe in those patients treated with sumatriptan succinate. Improvement in functional disability was, in general, better among those treated with isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen. Global analysis of efficacy was similar in the two active groups. Patients treated with sumatriptan succinate were somewhat more likely to have adverse effects than the isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen group. CONCLUSIONS: Both isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen and sumatriptan succinate are safe and effective when used early in the treatment of an acute migraine. Several parameters suggest that isometheptene mucate, dichloralphenazone with acetaminophen may have a slight advantage compared with sumatriptan succinate in the early treatment of mild-to-moderate migraine.

Acetaminophen↗
PubMed2000

A comparative trial of zolmitriptan and sumatriptan for the acute oral treatment of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: This randomized, double-blind, parallel group multicenter study compared response rates and tolerability of zolmitriptan with sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: A sample consisting of 1445 outpatients with an established diagnosis of migraine was randomized to zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg or 5 mg, or sumatriptan, 25 mg or 50 mg. Patients took 1 tablet for moderate/severe migraine and a second identical tablet, if necessary, for recurrent headache of moderate/severe intensity 4 to 24 hours after the initial dose. Up to six attacks were treated during a 6-month period. The primary outcome measure was headache response 2 hours after the initial dose. Secondary end points included 1-hour and 4-hour headache response and pain relief over 24 hours. RESULTS: A headache response at 2 hours was noted in 67.1% of patients taking zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, and 64.8% of those taking zolmitriptan, 5 mg, versus 59.6% of patients taking sumatriptan, 25 mg, and 63.8% of those taking sumatriptan, 50 mg. At 2 and 4 hours, the differences between zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, and sumatriptan, 25 mg, were statistically significant (odds ratio=1.49 and 1.67, respectively; both P<.001). Statistically significant differences between zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, and sumatriptan, 50 mg, were seen at 2 and 4 hours post dose (odds ratio=1.21 and 1.23, respectively; both P<.05). At 1 hour post dose, the headache response rate for zolmitriptan, 2. 5 mg, was numerically higher than response rates for sumatriptan, 25 mg and 50mg (odds ratio=1.16, odds ratio=1.06, though they failed to reach statistical significance; P=.061, P=.461 respectively). Differences between zolmitriptan, 5 mg, and sumatriptan, 25 mg, were statistically significant at 1, 2, and 4 hours (odds ratio=1.43, 1. 46, and 1.78, respectively; all P<.001) and at 1 and 4 hours versus sumatriptan, 50 mg (odds ratio=1.28, P=.002; odds ratio=1.29, P=.012, respectively). Although not statistically significant at 2 hours, more patients responded to zolmitriptan, 5 mg, than to sumatriptan, 50 mg (odds ratio=1.16, P=.064). Patients receiving zolmitriptan, 2. 5 mg or 5 mg, achieved more pain relief over 24 hours than patients receiving sumatriptan, 25 mg (odds ratio=1.47, and 1.54 respectively, both P<.001) or sumatriptan, 50 mg (odds ratio=1.17, P=.021; odds ratio=1.22, P=.005, respectively). All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg and 5 mg, was at least as effective as sumatriptan, 25 mg or 50 mg, for all parameters studied. Zolmitriptan, 2.5 mg, was significantly more effective than sumatriptan, 50 mg, in terms of headache response at 2 and 4 hours. Patients taking zolmitriptan were significantly more likely to have pain relief over 24 hours than those taking sumatriptan.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2000

Chronic pain. Sources of late-life pain and risk factors for disability.

The prevalence of pain peaks in middle age and decreases thereafter, according to most epidemiologic studies of complaints of pain. However, this apparent decrease in pain in older adults may be a statistical artifact. Eighty to 85% of persons experience a significant health problem that predisposes them to pain at some time after age 65. With aging, patients experience less frequent head, abdominal, and chest pain and more frequent joint pain. Women are more likely to report musculoskeletal pain and multiple pain sites than men, but there are no gender differences for reports of chest and abdominal pain. Many patients with chronic pain have clinically significant depressive symptoms and low self-reported quality-of-life scores.

Age Distribution↗
PubMed1999

Myofascial TMD does not run in families.

This study tests whether facial pain or associated symptoms and disorders aggregates in first degree relatives of those with myofascial temporomandibular disorders (M/TMD). We randomly selected one first degree relative of 106 probands with a lifetime history of M/TMD and one first degree relative of 118 acquaintance control probands with no history of M/TMD. Relatives were directly interviewed about the lifetime occurrence of a broad range of painful and non-painful health conditions and symptoms. Analyses revealed that rates of facial pain, symptoms of TMDs, and a range of other musculoskeletal conditions were not significantly different in first degree relatives of M/TMD probands and first degree relatives of controls. In addition, proband descriptors of facial pain severity or disability did not significantly predict the likelihood of having a first degree relative with one or more TMD-related symptoms. These results indicate that M/TMD is not a familial disorder.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1999

Why is depression comorbid with chronic myofascial face pain? A family study test of alternative hypotheses.

A number of explanations have been proposed to account for findings that rates of depression are elevated in persons with chronic, non-malignant pain disorders (CNPDs); for example, that CNPDs are variants of depression (e.g. 'masked depression'), that the stress of living with CNPDs contribute to the onset of depression ('diathesis-stress'), or that the correlation of CNPDs and depression is a methodological artifact of studying treatment-seeking samples. These alternative hypotheses are tested for one specific CNPD, chronic myofascial face pain, using a family study methodology. The procedure was to conduct direct psychiatric interviews with 106 patients with a history of carefully diagnosed myofascial face pain, 118 acquaintance controls without personal histories of myofascial face pain, and a random sample of adult first degree relatives of these case and control probands. The probands were further subdivided into four roughly equal samples consisting of cases with and without personal histories of major depressive disorder (MDD), and controls with and without personal histories of MDD. Dates of initial onsets of myofascial face pain and MDD in patient probands were obtained from interviews and records. The main results were that, compared to control probands without personal histories of MDD, MDD and depressive spectrum disorders (DSD) were elevated in the first degree relatives of control probands with personal histories of early onset MDD, but not in the first degree relatives of myofascial face pain probands with or without personal histories of early or late onset MDD. This outcome is consistent with the hypothesis that living with chronic myofascial face pain contributes to elevated rates of depression. It is inconsistent with the alternative hypotheses that this CNPD is a variant of depression or that the elevated MDD rates are simply an artifact of selection into treatment. The implications of these results and additional results consistent with them are discussed.

Adult↗
PubMed1999

Managing pain and comorbid depression: A public health challenge.

Many millions of Americans suffer chronic medical conditions complicated by both depression and pain. Chronic pain disorders may be classified as being caused by one or more mechanisms, such as nociceptive (inflammatory), neuropathic (peripheral and central), and myofascial, each associated with a complex substrate of neurophysiologic changes. Specific treatment approaches have been developed for different pain mechanisms. Because all pain sensation is personal and subjective, all pain is affected to some degree by emotional states, and, therefore, by psychosocial factors. Major depression commonly complicates chronic pain and adds to impairment and disability. There is evidence that patients with depression occurring after the onset of chronic pain have the same rates of affective disorders in family members as in the general population, and significantly lower rates than in families of patients with major depression alone. This suggests that it is the stress of living with chronic pain, not personal or family predisposition, that causes depression in these patients. Optimal treatment includes treatment of both pain and depression, together with a focus on symptom control and functional restoration.

Adult↗