Interventions. There were no interventions used in the study. Outcome Measures. Pain intensity was measured with a numeric rating scale (NRS); pain characteristics were assessed with the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the ID Pain (able to discriminate nociceptive from neuropathic pain). Quality of life

(QoL) was measured with the Short Form 36 Health Status Survey. A semi-structured questionnaire on pain occurrence, impact, and management was administered by the physiotherapist in charge of the patients and by the physician. Results. We studied 139 patients, 82% of whom complained of at least moderate pain (NRS = 3). According to ID pain, 45.6% patients complained of probable (33.8%) or highly probable (11.8%) neuropathic pain. A higher pain intensity was significantly related to the probability of having neuropathic pain (P < 0.001). Patients with more severe pain reported lower physical Selleckchem EPZ004777 and mental QoL scores. In 38.6% of cases, pain interfered with the rehabilitation process, and in 18.5% it was the cause of physical therapy discontinuation. Conclusions.

In light of the high occurrence and intensity of pain in the sample, and of the significant impact on the rehabilitation program, clinicians should pay more attention to pain, especially neuropathic pain, in postsurgical patients. Tailored pain pharmacological therapy could possibly improve patient compliance during the rehabilitation process and enhance long-term outcomes.”
“AimTo define the optimal gestational weight gain (GWG) for the AZD5363 clinical trial multiethnic Fosbretabulin Singaporean population.

MethodsData from

1529 live singleton deliveries was analyzed. A multinomial logistic regression analysis, with GWG as the predictor, was conducted to determine the lowest aggregated risk of a composite perinatal outcome, stratified by Asia-specific body mass index (BMI) categories. The composite perinatal outcome, based on a combination of delivery type (cesarean section [CS], vaginal delivery [VD]) and size for gestational age (small [SGA], appropriate [AGA], large [LGA]), had six categories: (i) VD with LGA; (ii) VD with SGA; (iii) CS with AGA; (iv) CS with SGA; (v) CS with LGA; (vi) and VD with AGA. The last was considered as the normal’ reference category. In each BMI category, the GWG value corresponding to the lowest aggregated risk was defined as the optimal GWG, and the GWG values at which the aggregated risk did not exceed a 5% increase from the lowest aggregated risk were defined as the margins of the optimal GWG range.

ResultsThe optimal GWG by pre-pregnancy BMI category, was 19.5kg (range, 12.9 to 23.9) for underweight, 13.7kg (7.7 to 18.8) for normal weight, 7.9kg (2.6 to 14.0) for overweight and 1.8kg (-5.0 to 7.0) for obese.