关节镜双后内入路与切开手术治疗急性单纯后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折早期疗效对比

目的:比较关节镜双后内入路与切开手术治疗急性单纯后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折的疗效差异。方法:回顾性分析2016年6月至2020年6月经手术治疗的52例急性单纯性后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折患者的临床资料,按手术方案不同分为两组,关节镜组27例患者行关节镜双后内入路手术治疗,其中男16例,女11例,年龄19~52(34.9±9.2)岁;切开复位组25例患者行膝关节后内侧切口手术治疗,其中男14例,女11例,年龄18~54(33.7±8.4)岁。观察并比较两组患者手术时间、切口长度、术中出血量、住院时间、住院费用、术后愈合情况、并发症以及术后12个月Lysholm、IKDC评分。结果:两组患者均顺利完成手术,无血管、神经损伤。52例均获得随访,时间6~24(15.0±1.7)个月。关节镜组手术时间、住院费用大于切开复位组(P<0.05);关节镜组术中出血量、切口长度、住院时间小于切开复位组(P<0.05);关节镜组和切开复位组术后12个月Lysholm评分分别为(95.9±1.7)分和(86.4±1.2)分,均较术前的(49.1±2.3)分和(48.9±1.1)分显著提高(P<0.05);关节镜组和切开复位组术后12个月IKDC总分分别为(96.9±1.5)分和(87.1±1.4)分,均较术前的(47.6±4.1)分和(48.1±3.9)分显著提高(P<0.05);关节镜组术后12个月膝关节Lysholm、IKDC评分均高于切开复位组(P<0.05)。结论:关节镜双后内入路治疗急性单纯后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折,早期效果满意,疗效优于传统开放手术,具有创伤小、恢复快、操作简便等优点。     

A European evaluation of the patients’ role in clinical education: A six-country cross sectional study

AimThe aim of this study was to analyse the patients’ role in clinical education in terms of facilitative student-patient relationship in Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania and Spain and factors promoting a more facilitative relationship in clinical education.BackgroundNursing students’ bedside learning is reliant on patients and the establishment of a person-centred approach develops from the relationships with patients.DesignA multi-country, cross-sectional design was implemented.MethodsSurvey data were collected from graduating nursing students and patients between May 2018 and March 2019. The survey consisted of a 13-item facilitative sub-scale of the Student-Patient Relationship Scale as the main outcome measure, which was identical for both populations. In addition, background factors were surveyed with single questions and other scales. Associations between facilitative relationship and background factors were studied with linear models.ResultsAltogether, 1796 students and 1327 patients answered the survey. Overall, both students and patients regarded their relationship as facilitative, but students’ (median 4.23, 95% confidence interval 4.15–4.23) evaluations were higher than patients’ (median 3.75, 95% confidence interval 3.69–3.77). The students’ and patients’ evaluations differed from each other significantly in all other countries except in Ireland and Lithuania. Corresponding associations for both populations were found in terms of the country and students’ cultural confidence.ConclusionsResults signal favourable grounds for students’ bedside learning and patient participation in clinical education with the potential to foster a person-centred approach.     

广泛性焦虑障碍住院患者与健康对照者的认知功能比较研究

背景 广泛性焦虑障碍（GAD）是常见的慢性精神疾病，常伴有不同程度的认知功能损害，严重影响患者的生活质量及社会功能。 目的 比较GAD住院患者与健康对照者认知功能的差异。 方法 选取2018年8月至2020年1月在南方医科大学南方医院住院治疗的GAD患者为GAD组（n=30），同期通过广告在南方医科大学南方医院住院患者陪护人员中招募年龄、性别相匹配的健康志愿者为健康对照组（n=30）。使用汉密尔顿焦虑量表（HAMA）、汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）和Beck自杀意念量表中文版（BSI-CV）进行心理测评，采用精神运动警觉性任务（PVT）、Go/No-go联想任务、N-back任务分别评估认知功能的注意、抑制及工作记忆功能。比较两组一般情况、量表测评总分及认知功能差异，进一步采用多因素Logistic回归分析探究GAD住院患者和健康对照者的认知功能差异。 结果 GAD组HAMA、HAMD总分和最严重情况时BSI-CV总分及最严重情况时存在自杀意念者所占比例高于健康对照组（P<0.05）。N-back任务：GAD组1-back击中目标率（NBACK1a）、2-back击中目标率（NBACK2a）低于健康对照组，1-back击中目标的平均反应时（NBACK1b）长于健康对照组（P<0.05）。多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示，NBACK1a〔OR=0.946，95%CI（0.898，0.997），P=0.038〕、NBACK1b〔OR=1.007，95%CI（1.000，1.014），P=0.042〕是GAD的影响因素。 结论 与健康对照者相比，GAD住院患者的工作记忆较差，需要临床关注。     

社区动脉粥样硬化风险研究的进展和展望

社区动脉粥样硬化风险（ARIC）研究是1987年由美国心、肺和血液研究所资助的关注非洲裔美国人心血管健康的最大研究。旨在调查心脏病的危险因素以及心血管疾病与认知之间的联系。ARIC研究的许多发现加深了对动脉粥样硬化性心血管病病因的了解,在心血管病预防领域做出了重大贡献,证明了以人群为基础的研究对改善健康和预防疾病的重要性。主要概述ARIC研究的起源、目的、研究设计、对心血管医学的贡献以及未来的发展方向。     

Sofosbuvir-velpatasvir en pacientes mexicanos con hepatitis C: una revisión retrospectiva

IntroductionThe sofosbuvir-velpatasvir (SOF/VEL) combination is a direct-acting antiviral therapy that is authorized and available in Mexico, making the performance of a real-world multicenter study that evaluates the sustained virologic response at 12 weeks post-treatment a relevant undertaking.MethodsA retrospective review of the case records of 241 patients seen at 20 hospitals in Mexico was conducted to assess hepatitis C treatment with the SOF/VEL combination (n = 231) and the sofosbuvir/velpatasvir/ribavirin (SOF/VEL/RBV) combination (n = 10). The primary efficacy endpoint was the percentage of patients that achieved SVR at 12 weeks after the end of treatment.ResultsOverall SVR was 98.8% (95% CI 97.35-100%). Only three patients did not achieve SVR, two of whom had cirrhosis and a history of previous treatment with peg-IFN. Of the subgroups analyzed, all the patients with HIV coinfection, three patients with genotype 3, and the patients treated with the SOF/VEL/RBV combination achieved SVR. The subgroups with the lower success rates were patients that were treatment-experienced (96.8%) and patients with F1 fibrosis (95.5%). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, headache, and insomnia. No serious adverse events were reported.ConclusionTreatments with SOF/VEL and SOF/VEL/RBV were highly safe and effective, results coinciding with those of other international real-world studies.