卵巢室管膜瘤一例

患者女,38岁。反复下腹疼痛伴盆腔包块1年余,于2003年9月入院。妇科检查：子宫如孕40多天大小,右附件区扪及一9cm×8cm×5cm包块,囊实性感,活动,无明显压痛。B超：右附件区肿物8cm×6cm×6cm,中等回声,其中有一直径3．5cm液性暗区,左附件未见异常。临床诊断：右卵巢巧克力囊肿。行右卵巢巧克力囊肿剥除术,术中见：右卵巢5cm×4cm×3cm,其上缘有2．0cm×0．3cm×0．3cm的灰白色细蒂,[第一段]     

乳腺多形性腺瘤1例

患者女性,43岁,因左乳腺肿物3年入院。查体：患者左乳腺内上象限触及5cm×4cm×4cm肿物,活动度好,无触痛。[第一段]     

肾透明细胞癌伴肾盂血管瘤及肾上腺皮质腺瘤一例

患者 男．63岁。因高血压3个月,左肾区疼痛伴肉眼血尿10余天,恶心、呕吐半天于2006年7月18日入院。体检：左肾区叩痛,血压210／100mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）。B超检查：左肾近下极见5．7cm×5．2cm多囊性肿物;左肾门区见3．5cm×3．5cm实性肿物,突人肾盂内;右肾上腺见3．0cm×2．8cm圆形均质回声结节,包裹在肾上腺内。临床诊断为左肾多发性肿瘤,右肾上腺肿瘤。遂行左肾全切及右肾上腺肿瘤摘除术。手术中血压无波动,手术后血压135／75mmHg。     

成人神经皮肤黑色素细胞增生症伴颅内黑色素细胞瘤1例

患者,女,34岁,因反复头胀1年余、加重1个月伴记忆减退入院：入院体查：左侧眼睑见3cm×2cm黑色斑块,分别于头顶和枕部皮肤处见13cm×7cm和11cm×8cm黑色．斑块（图1）;自述出牛后即有,后渐增大。双瞳孔等大等圆．左侧嗅觉减退,四肢肌力及腱反射无特殊,病理反射阴性．MRI示左侧额叶巨大软组织影,4．3cm×3．7cm,边缘尚清,[第一段]     

黏液样肾上腺皮质肿瘤1例

患者女性,32岁,因无意中发现左腹部肿物2天入院。无疼痛、发热,无尿频、尿急,无呕吐、腹泻,血压及血生化检查正常,腹部B超示腹膜后腹主动脉左侧、胰尾区探及17．2cm×10．2cm一不均质实性肿块,包膜完整,左肾向下向后移位。上腹部CT（平扫＋增强）扫描左侧腹部见一巨大软组织肿块,边缘清楚,约10．0cm×12．5cm,增强扫描后见不均匀结节状强化。胃、胰、脾及左肾受压移位。[第一段]     

甲状腺上皮样血管内皮瘤1例

患者，女，66岁，发现颈部肿物2年，快速增大1月。体检：左侧颈前甲状腺肿物12cm×10cm×10cm，质硬，结节状，表面皮肤无红肿，边界欠清，活动度差，无明显触压痛，气管偏向右侧，肿块无血管杂音。实验室检查T3、T4正常。X线气管软化试验阳性。CT示左侧颈部恶性肿瘤。     

男性假两性畸形合并精原细胞瘤1例

患者,40岁,已婚,原发闭经,未生育。因盆腔肿物在外院行“双侧附件＋大网膜切除术”,术后3个月来我院复查。体检：女性体态,四肢发育正常,无胡须,喉结不突出,腋毛稀少,乳腺发育正常。妇科检查：女性外阴,阴毛稀少,阴蒂不大．阴道短小。术中见右“卵巢”肿物13cm×10cm×9cm,左“卵巢”大小3cm×2．5cm×2cm,未见子宫。术前外院外周血激素资料不详。其父母非近亲结婚,[第一段]     

乳腺导管内乳头状瘤伴皮脂腺化生一例

患者女,67岁。因发现右侧乳房内鸡蛋黄大小肿块1个月于2006年2月16日入院。体检：右乳腺内上象限触及约3．0cm×3．0cm×2．0cm肿物,质硬,触之无痛感,活动度差,与周围组织界限尚清楚。无乳头溢液,双侧腋窝淋巴结未触及肿大。乳腺钼靶摄片：右乳房内上象限2．5cm×2．5cm高密度影,界限清楚,内见细小钙化灶。彩色超声检查：右乳房内上象限探及1个2．9cm×2．0cm界限清楚、实性低回声结节。近边缘处回声不均匀,探及1．0cm×0．9cm形态不规则的暗区。暗区内探及条状分隔带,未探及明显血流信号。     

喉多形性横纹肌肉瘤一例

患者男,32岁。因“声嘶2年,加重半年”于2005年11月6日入院。外院行喉镜活检示“恶性肿瘤”。喉镜示左侧披裂可见2cm×2cm大小实性肿物,遮盖左侧梨状窝,表面光滑。CT示喉咽部左后侧壁肿块影,向腔内突出,咽腔左侧变窄（图1）。术中见肿物位于环状软骨板后上方,似有包膜,表面喉黏膜光滑,肿物向下达环状软骨下缘,向对侧已越过中线,向前未达会厌。行全喉切除术加双侧颈部清扫。[第一段]     

伴有神经毡样岛和菊形团的胶质神经元肿瘤一例

忠者女,39岁。囚抽搐昏迷5d,伴近10年癫痫病史,于2006年5月5日入院。CT示：右侧颞顾叶占化,大小2．0cm×1.5cm×1．0cm,内见斑片状高密度影,剧嗣旱低密度水肿区,右侧脑室受雎变形。[第一段]     

Level of functioning of siblings and parents of probands of varying degrees of retardation

A further analysis of already published data supports the position that retardates of low ability level less frequently have retarded siblings, retarded parents, and parents low in occupational level than do retardates higher in ability level. The analysis supports the position that there are two types of retarded individuals, persons retarded as a result of gene or chromosomal anomalies, brain injury, etc., who more frequently occur in the lower-level retardate group, and persons whose retardation represents polygenic segregation, who more frequently occur in the higher-level group.     

Modes of Inheritance of Errors of Refraction

Eighteen families in which both parents had refractions within the range of +4·0 D to −4·0 D and axial lengths seen in emmetropia (22·3-26·0 mm) showed coefficients of correlation of the order 0·5 indicative of polygenic inheritance. Such coefficients were seen for axial length (0·407) and for the cornea (0·487), but not for the lens (which is known to be yoked to the axial length). No such coefficients were seen in 19 families in which one of the parents had axial length outside the emmetropic range (nine families with long axes and 10 with short axes).

The pattern of polygenic inheritance for emmetropia (completely correlated optical components) and errors of refraction up to 4·0 D (inadequately correlated components: correlation ametropia) follows that seen in stature and other measurable characters. In contrast the high refractive errors with their abnormal axial lengths (component ametropia) are—like the extremes in stature—pathological anomalies with monofactorial inheritance.

     

Aspects of the problem of direct introduction of Standards of International Organizations

Editorial note. This article is published as part of a discussion. Particular issues of the article are disputable. First of all, this concerns the so-called “folder” method of introduction of international standards for medical devices to domestic medical practice (i.e., by direct translation of the standards and their publication as standardizing documents). Nevertheless, at least one of the problems, the problem of coordination between domestic state standards for medical devices and international recommendations of ISO and IEC, is undoubtedly of topical importance. Advancement of new health service legislation which is to be approved by law-makers will definitely introduce corrections into the present situation. The Editorial Board of Meditsinskaya Tekhnika believes this article will lessen these problems and to be welcomed by readers.