小淋巴细胞性淋巴瘤与组织细胞肉瘤组合性肿瘤一例

患者,男,59岁.因发现左腋窝肿块4年,诊断淋巴瘤3个月于2007年9月27日入院.患者4年前无明显诱因发现左腋窝肿块,无全身症状.1年前肿块逐渐增大,同时右侧腋窝亦发现肿块于2007年6月在当地医院行左侧腋窝淋巴结清扫,术后病理诊断为"弥漫性小细胞性恶性淋巴瘤".     

侵袭性系统性肥大细胞增生症一例

患者女,58岁.因体检发现脾脏肿大5年,腹胀1年于2009年3月8日入院.5年前,体检发现脾脏肿大,无腹痛、腹胀,无贫血,无皮肤瘀斑、牙龈出血等表现,未予重视.1年前,无明显诱因出现左侧际肋部持续疼痛,并有乏力和活动能力下降.     

侵袭性系统性肥大细胞增生症一例

患者女,58岁.因体检发现脾脏肿大5年,腹胀1年于2009年3月8日入院.5年前,体检发现脾脏肿大,无腹痛、腹胀,无贫血,无皮肤瘀斑、牙龈出血等表现,未予重视.1年前,无明显诱因出现左侧际肋部持续疼痛,并有乏力和活动能力下降.     

左髂静脉血管周上皮样细胞肿瘤1例

患者男性,40岁.1个月前因上呼吸道感染在内科住院期间MRI检查发现左下腹包块,约鸡蛋大小,自觉左腰部酸胀,余无不适.MRI示:左侧髂动脉外侧与左侧腰大肌之间占位性病变,压迫左侧髂总动脉使其向前内移位,可能与左侧肠系膜下动脉分支关系密切(图1).术前临床诊断:左下腹精原细胞瘤?于2009年10月10日行左下腹肿瘤切除术.     

腺淋巴瘤淋巴组织恶变为非特殊性外周T细胞淋巴瘤一例

患者男,62岁.主因发现左侧腮腺肿物3年,生长加快1年于2007年1月5日入院.体检:左腮腺后极触及一个直径3.5 cm的肿物,边界清楚,表面光滑,无压痛,活动度较好,与周围组织无粘连,全身浅表淋巴结无肿大.B超示左侧颈上部近圆形低回声区,与周围组织分界尚清.     

隐匿性乳腺癌伴同侧腋窝、颈部淋巴结多发转移一例北大核心CSCD

患者女,61岁.因无痛性左颈部包块2年,于2015年8月23日就诊于武汉大学人民医院.患者于2年前发现左颈部无痛性包块,未予诊疗,半年内增大明显,曾于当地医院就诊,穿刺活检示：淋巴结转移性腺癌.胸部、上腹部及盆腔CT示：左侧颈部肿块.后于外院做PET-CT示：左侧颈部可见多个淋巴结肿大.入院体检：左侧颈部可及一肿块,大小10 cm×8 cm,质韧,左侧腋窝可及肿大淋巴结.鼻咽、颈部MRI示：左侧颈根部胸锁乳突肌内侧异常信号,符合转移性腺癌表现;双侧颌下及颈部多发淋巴结肿大（图1）.乳腺MRI示：双侧乳头、乳房对称,乳头无凹陷,皮肤光滑无皱褶,乳晕无增厚;左侧胸小肌外侧、腋下信号异常,考虑肿大淋巴结,转移性病变可能.     

腹腔镜经腹膜前间隙修补术治疗耻骨上膀胱疝一例

患者男,65岁。因"左侧腹股沟复发疝术后50余日,发现左侧腹股沟区可复性包块复发40余日"于2017年6月29日入院。患者2007年于外院因"左侧腹股沟疝"行手术治疗(具体术式不详),术后恢复良好。2012年患者于左侧腹股沟区原手术切口瘢痕下发现一直径约2.0 cm质软可复性包块,未降入阴囊内,因无特殊不适,未治疗。     

貌似乳腺叶状肿瘤的肾混合性上皮间质肿瘤1例

患者女性,34岁,既往有卵巢囊肿手术史.以左侧腰痛1年为主诉,无其它泌尿系感染、血尿等症状.CT示左肾上极可见1肿物,大小8 cm×7 cm.患者行左侧肾脏切除术后随访5个月未发现复发或转移.     

左胸壁肿物

1.病例简介:患者女,23岁.发现左胸壁肿物2个月于2006年7月12日入院.既往史:2001年10月11日因发现左肾区包块30 d在当地医院行左侧多囊肾(肾肿瘤)切除术,术后病理诊断:(左肾)乳头状肾细胞癌.2005年6月23日无意中发现左侧髂窝处肿物2个月于南京某医院行左髂窝肿瘤切除术,病理诊断:左髂窝转移性乳头状癌,结合病史及免疫组织化学结果,符合多房性囊性肾细胞癌转移.体检:一般情况可,浅表淋巴结未触及肿大.     

高同型半胱氨酸血症并发颅内动脉瘤和动脉狭窄1例

1 病例资料 患者,男性,19岁.因反复头痛头晕伴共济失调3月入院.于2010-02-24出现头痛头晕不适,伴共济失调,走路不稳,左侧肢体活动差,以后反复出现头晕不适.无高血压、高血脂及遗传病史,无中枢神经系统炎症史.     

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.