骨质疏松症动物模型的构建及实验方法研究进展

骨质疏松症是一种全身性骨代谢病,由多种因素引起,其特点是骨量、骨密度和骨组织的显微结构恶化,骨脆性增强和易发生骨折。骨质疏松症已严重威胁人类健康,最终将导致患者日常活动减少,生活质量降低,死亡率增加。针对不同的研究对象,选择一个正确、理想的动物骨质疏松的模型和实验方法以尽可能再现人类骨质疏松的状态,是开展动物实验的关键。我们综述了当前原发性和继发性骨质疏松等动物模型的构建,以及利用这些模型进行给药实验的研究方法,并对研发治疗骨质疏松的新型药物的选择提供了一些参考建议,以期对后续关于药物的作用机制、研发新药、药物的改良等研究提供思路。     

中医疗法结合3D打印技术治疗中重度肘管综合征

目的:观察应用3D打印技术指导下的尺神经沟扩大成形术结合尺神经原位松解,术后给予针刺促进神经康复来治疗中重度肘管综合征的临床疗效。方法:自2016年4月—2019年3月,对40例由于肘关节退行性病变引起的尺神经沟骨赘生成造成尺神经卡压的中重度肘管综合征患者,根据其术前肘关节CT平扫三维重建应用3D打印技术打印肘关节模型,根据我院骨科人员提出的"肘管指数"概念,经电脑辅助计算尺神经沟正常尺寸并制作个性化的磨骨"试模",术中原位松解尺神经沟后,将尺神经牵至后方保护,切开关节囊,根据磨骨"试模"大小应用磨钻打磨扩大加深尺神经沟,尺神经松解后重新还纳入扩大的肘管内,重建弓状韧带缝回,术后在常规预防感染,营养神经治疗的同时,应用针刺的方法进行治疗,取穴以尺神经走行手太阳小肠经穴位为主,10天为1个疗程,针刺3个疗程,每疗程结束后休息3天。结果:40例患者术后伤口均一期愈合,未见血肿形成,其中1例患者因恐惧针刺而中途放弃针灸治疗。所有患者术后得到随访,随访时间12～18个月,平均13.6个月。将术后12个月与术前的运动感觉传导速度、两点辨别觉、握力、侧方捏力(占对侧百分比)进行比较,均有明显提高,有统计学差异(P0.05)。根据中华医学会手外科分会上肢部分功能评定试用标准评价手部功能:优28例,良10例,可1例,差1例,优良率95%。结论:应用3D打印技术指导下的肘管扩大成形术+尺神经原位松解,术后结合中医针灸治疗中重度肘管综合征,有一定的临床疗效。     

Uncommon causes of nerve compression in the distal forearm

IntroductionNerve compression by anomalous masses located at the wrist and distal forearm is an infrequent condition. They may compress underlying structures in the carpal tunnel region, causing pain and paresthesias, which leads to the wrong diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome.Clinical casesWe present three cases of patients with symptomatology and clinical tests compatible with compression of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel but whose physical examination showed a soft mass in the distal region of the forearm which was compressing the median nerve, as demonstrated by ultrasound evaluation.DiscussionThe reported cases of accessory muscles or lipomas described in the literature as causes of median nerve compression clinic are mainly described only after the surgical decompression of the carpal tunnel, due to the maintenance of residual symptoms.ConclusionCareful examination with an ultrasound evaluation prior to surgery may help to identify these cases and help planning surgical treatment.     

《邵氏医案》从血辨治痛经浅析

[目的]分析总结浙江近代著名临床医家邵兰荪治疗痛经的经验,以期为临床治疗提供借鉴。[方法]通过研读裘吉生编《邵氏医案》,筛选出其中治疗痛经的医案十余则,并结合邵氏在妇科方面的学术思想,进一步分析其辨证立法遣方特色,从而总结邵氏治疗痛经的临证经验。[结果]邵氏治疗痛经多从血辨治,且分虚实两端,其中属虚者血虚内热用益母胜金丹养血清热、活血止痛,血虚肝风治以养血柔肝、息风止痛;属实者水结血瘀用五苓散利水散瘀、行气止痛,气阻血滞治从行气活血、调经止痛。[结论]在治疗妇人痛经方面,邵氏辨治遣方确有独特经验,这些经验可为中医药治疗此类疾病拓宽诊治思路,有助于提高临床疗效。     

Nerve hydrodissection for carpal tunnel syndrome: A prospective,randomized, double-blind,controlled trial

Introduction: In this study we explored the efficacy of nerve hydrodissection for mild-to-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). Methods: Thirty-four participants were randomly assigned to an intervention group or a control group. One 5-ml dose of normal saline was injected into the intracarpal and subcutaneous regions in subjects of both groups, respectively. The primary outcome measure was the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ) score. Secondary outcomes were cross-sectional area of the median nerve and electrophysiological studies. Assessments were performed before the injection and at 1, 2, 3, and 6 months postintervention. Results: Compared with the control group, the intervention group showed significantly greater improvement at the second and third posttreatment months according to BCTQ severity score and at all time-points for cross-sectional area of the median nerve (P < 0.01). Discussion: Our study demonstrates the therapeutic effects of nerve hydrodissection for mild-to-moderate CTS. Muscle Nerve 59 :174–180, 2019     

For better or worse? Investigating the validity of best–worst discrete choice experiments in health

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are frequently used in health economics to measure preferences for nonmarket goods. Best–worst discrete choice experiment (BWDCE) has been proposed as a variant of the traditional “pick the best” approach. BWDCE, where participants choose the best and worst options, is argued to generate more precise preference estimates because of the additional information collected. However, the validity of the approach relies on two necessary conditions: (a) best and worst decisions provide similar information about preferences and (b) asking individuals to answer more than one choice question per task does not reduce data quality. Whether these conditions hold in empirical applications remains under researched. This is the first study to compare participants' choices across three experimental conditions: (a) BEST choices only, (b) WORST choices only, and (c) BEST and WORST choices (BWDCE). We find responses to worst choices are noisier. Implied preferences from the best only and worst only choices are qualitatively different, leading to different WTP values. Responses to BWDCE tasks have lower consistency, and respondents are more likely to use simplifying decision heuristics. We urge caution in using BWDCE as an alternative to the traditional “pick the best” DCE.