Bacterial and fungal co-infection is a major barrier in COVID-19 patients: A specific management and therapeutic strategy is required

Microbial co-infections are another primary concern in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet it is an untouched area among researchers. Preliminary data and systematic reviews only show the type of pathogens responsible for that, but its pathophysiology is still unknown. Studies show that these microbial co-infections are hospital-acquired/nosocomial infections, and patients admitted to intensive care units with invasive mechanical ventilation are highly susceptible to it. Patients with COVID-19 had elevated inflammatory cytokines and a weakened cell-mediated immune response, with lower CD4⁺ T and CD8⁺ T cell counts, indicating vulnerability to various co-infections. Despite this, there are only a few studies that recommend the management of co-infections.     

Interactions between cancer cells and immune cells drive transitions to mesenchymal-like states in glioblastoma

1. Download : Download high-res image (228KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Mirror movements in progressive hemifacial atrophy

Mirror movements are simultaneous, involuntary, identical movements occurring during contralateral voluntary movements. These movements are considered as soft neurologic signs seen uncommonly in clinical practice. The mirror movements are described in various neurological disorders which include parkinsonism, cranio veretebral junction anamolies, and hemiplegic cerebral palsy. These movements are intriguing and can pose significant disability. However, no such observation regarding mirror movements in progressive hemifacial atrophy have been reported previously. We are reporting a teenage girl suffering from progressive hemifacial atrophy and epilepsy with demonstrable mirror movements in hand.     

Endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy verses external dacryocystorhinostomy

This is a prospective, non-randomized study to evaluate and compare the results, morbidity and surgical time for endonasal carbon-dioxide laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and external dacryocystorhinostomy. 70 consecutive patients of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction were selected for the study. 36 patients under went endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 34 had external dacryocystorhinostomy. Selection of the type of operation was left to the patient's choice. All the patients had preoperative counseling and both the procedures were explained in detail with their advantages and disadvantages. Patients not willing for the external incision were selected for endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and others were operated via external approach. Silicone tubes were put in all the patients for three months after surgery. The final follow up was 12 months after the removal of silicone tubes. The patency of the lacrimal passage was confirmed by irrigation, and patients were questioned about their symptoms. The success rates, 12 months after removal of silicone tubes were 100% in endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy and 88.24% in external dacryocystorhinostomy. The surgical time of endonasal laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy was 38 minutes as compared to 62 in external dacryocystorhinostomy. Complication rate in both groups was almost equal. Thus, we came to the conclusion that Endonasal CO2 laser assisted dacryocystorhinostomy is a better surgical option to external dacryocystorhinostomy in cases of chronic dacryocystitis with nasolacrimal duct obstruction, with shorter surgical time.