兰索拉唑与莫沙必利联合治疗反流性食管炎的临床观察

目的 观察兰索拉唑与莫沙必利联合治疗反流性食管炎的临床效果.方法 89例反流性食管炎患者随机分为两组,治疗组50例用兰索拉唑和莫沙必利,对照组39例用盐酸雷尼替丁胶囊,观察治疗前及治疗后4、8周的临床症状改善情况和内镜变化.结果 用药4周时,治疗组反酸、恶心及胸骨后疼痛治疗有效率分别为78%、84%、82%,与对照组比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).用药8周结束时,治疗组反酸、恶心及胸骨后疼痛全部改善,总有效率分别是98%、98%和93%,明显优于对照组的64%、81%和73%(均P＜0.05);内镜4周、8周复查治疗组与对照组食管黏膜病损愈合率分别为84%和62%,96%和77%,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 兰索拉唑、莫沙必利联合用药是治疗反流性食管炎安全、有效的方法.     

Acute otomastoiditis and its complications: role of CT

Acute bacterial (suppurative) otomastoiditis responds to antibiotic treatment; radiologic study is required only when there is clinical suggestion of coalescent mastoiditis, intracranial complications, or an underlying chronic disease. Computed tomography (CT) is the method of choice for evaluating otogenic intra- or extra-cranial complications. CT scans can show stages of disease progression when infection has spread by way of soft tissue, blood, and bone pathways into the dural venous sinuses, meninges, labyrinth, facial nerves, epidural and other intracranial spaces. When there is clinical suggestion of acute coalescent mastoiditis, a CT scan of the temporal bone can confirm the presence of rarefying osteitis, coalescence of the air cells, and subperiosteal abscess.     

Macrolides: A Canadian Infectious Disease Society position paper

Since the introduction of erythromycin in 1965, no new compounds from the macrolide antimicrobial class were licensed in Canada until the 1990s. Clarithromycin and azithromycin, since their introduction, have become important agents for treating a number of common and uncommon infectious diseases. They have become prime agents in the treatment of respiratory tract infections, and have revolutionized the management of both genital chlamydial infections, by the use of single-dose therapy with azithromycin, and nontuberculous mycobacterial infections, by the use of clarithromycin. The improvement of clarithromycin and azithromycin over the gastrointestinal intolerability of erythromycin has led to supplanting the use of the latter for many primary care physicians. Unfortunately, the use of these agents has also increased the likelihood for misuse and has raised concerns about a resultant increase in the rates of macrolide resistance in many important pathogens, such as Streptococcus pneumoniae. This paper reviews the pharmacology and evidence for the current indications for use of these newer agents, and provides recommendations for appropriate use.Key Words: Azithromycin, Clarithromycin, Erythromycin, Macrolides, Review, Therapeutic useErythromycin A is a naturally occurring, microbiologically active compound of the macrolide class of antibiotics. Chemical modification of erythromycin A''s 14-membered lactone ring has led to the formation of semisynthetic derivatives with not only improved bioavailability and tolerability, but also expanded spectrums of microbiological activity and improved pharmacokinetic profiles. Such modifications produced clarithromycin, classified as a macrolide because it retains the central 14-membered lactone ring (1,2), and azithromycin, classified as an azalide due to its 15-membered aglycone ring (1). The latter two compounds are the newest agents in the macrolide class licensed for use in Canada. Roxithromycin and dirithromycin are available in other countries.These compounds are clinically active against Gram-positive and Gram-negative cocci, and Gram-negative bacilli (primarily Haemophilus influenzae, Legionella species, Moraxella catarrhalis, Campylobacter jejuni, Bordatella pertussis and Helicobacter pylori). Azalides such as azithromycin have exhibited superior activity against Gram-negative pathogens and are generally less active against Gram-positive pathogens. Intracellular pathogens such as Chlamydia species, Mycoplasma species, Ureaplasma species, Borrelia species and nontuberculous mycobacteria species show varying susceptibilities. On the basis of their microbial activity, both the macrolides and azalides have been shown to be clinically useful in the treatment of uncomplicated skin and soft tissue infections, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, sexually transmitted Chlamydia trachomatis infection and peptic ulcer disease. Additionally, the improved pharmacokinetic profiles and acid stability exhibited by the newer agents may lead to enhanced patient adherence through less frequent dosing and improved bioavailability in the presence of food.     

TLIF术式在布氏杆菌性脊柱炎病人中的临床疗效及安全性分析

目的 对比分析单纯后路内固定+一期经腰椎间孔病椎间病灶清除(TLIF)与经典的前后联合手术在布氏杆菌性脊柱炎患者中的临床疗效及安全性。 方法 对我院2015年1月至2017年12月收治的93例布病性脊柱炎患者的临床资料进行分析。按手术方式分为观察组(45例)和对照组(48例)。对两组患者的基础数据、临床指标、术前术后各项指标水平以及术后并发症、植骨治愈情况。 结果 观察组与对照组基础数据比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。观察组患者的手术时间、住院天数、术中出血量及术后下床时间均明显低于对照组(P<0.01)。两组患者术后3个月的ODI、VAS、CRP、ESR及Cobb角均明显低于术前(P<0.05);术后3个月,观察组患者的ODI、VAS、CRP、ESR及Cobb角均明显低于对照组(P<0.05)。观察组术后并发症发生率(4.4%)明显低于对照组(25.0%)(Χ²=7.674,P<0.01)。 结论 TLIF治疗布氏杆菌性脊柱炎患者的临床疗效突出,安全性较好,更有利于患者术后身体的恢复。     

以病人为中心的口腔科门诊数字化建设初探

目的：总结以病人为中心的口腔科门诊数字化建设的经验。方法：从诊疗手段、就医流程、医疗文书以及科室管理4个方面总结广州军区武汉总医院口腔科门诊数字化建设的概况。结果：2009年以来开始进行El腔科门诊的数字化建设,经过3年多的运行,科室工作流程优化明显,提高了工作效率和医疗服务质量。结论：科室的数字化建设有助于提高科室的工作效率和医疗服务质量,充分体现了”以病人为中心”这一理念。     

Meta-analysis of retrojugular versus antejugular approach for carotid endarterectomy

Introduction

The retrojugular approach for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been reported to have the advantages of shorter operative time and ease of dissection, especially in high carotid lesions. Controversial opinion exists with regard to its safety and benefits over the conventional antejugular approach.

Methods

A systematic review of electronic information sources was conducted to identify studies comparing outcomes of CEA performed with the retrojugular and antejugular approach. Synthesis of summary statistics was undertaken and fixed or random effects models were applied to combine outcome data.

Findings

A total of 6 studies reporting on a total of 740 CEAs (retrojugular approach: 333 patients; antejugular approach: 407 patients) entered our meta-analysis models. The retrojugular approach was found to be associated with a higher incidence of laryngeal nerve damage (odds ratio [OR]: 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.46–7.07). No significant differences in the incidence of hypoglossal or accessory nerve damage were identified between the retrojugular and antejugular approach groups (OR: 1.09 and 11.51, 95% CI: 0.31–3.80 and 0.59–225.43). Cranial nerve damage persisting during the follow-up period was similar between the groups (OR: 2.96, 95% CI: 0.79–11.13). Perioperative stroke and mortality rates did not differ in patients treated with the retrojugular or antejugular approach (OR: 1.26 and 1.28, 95% CI: 0.31–5.21 and 0.25–6.50).

Conclusions

Currently, there is no conclusive evidence to favour one approach over the other. Proof from a well designed randomised trial would help determine the role and benefits of the retrojugular approach in CEA.