术前减轻黄疸对壶腹部癌行Whipple手术治疗效果的影响

目的:探讨术前减轻黄疸对壶腹部癌患者行Whipple手术治疗效果的影响。方法:回顾性分析2012年1月—2018年7月45例在Whipple手术术前行减轻黄疸治疗的壶腹部癌患者(减轻黄疸组)的临床资料,与同期34例行Whipple手术术前未行减轻黄疸治疗的壶腹部癌患者(未减轻黄疸组)的临床资料进行比较。比较两组患者术前、术中情况(手术时间、出血量、输血量)和术后并发症的差异。结果:减轻黄疸组患者治疗后总胆红素(TBil)、结合胆红素(DBil)、谷丙转氨酶(ALT)与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组R 0切除率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。减轻黄疸组手术时间、术中出血量、术中输血量优于未减轻黄疸组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。减轻黄疸组术后并发症发生率、胰漏发生率和胆漏发生率少于未减轻黄疸组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:壶腹部癌患者行Whipple手术术前彻底减轻黄疸,可以缩短手术时间,减少术中出血量和术后并发症的发生。     

渐进性关腹术：一种新的暂时性腹腔关闭术后早期确定性腹壁关闭技术

正损害控制性剖腹术提出已经近30年,随着负压封闭引流辅助的暂时性腹腔关闭(temporary abdominal closure,TAC)技术的发展和成熟,TAC显著改善了腹腔间隙综合征、严重腹部创伤和腹腔感染等患者的全身血液灌注和脏器功能,降低了病死率~([1-2])。虽然临床高度重视开放腹腔术后的早期腹部切口确定性关闭,但仍然有10%～25%的患者需要植皮形成计划性腹疝(planned ventral hernia,PVH)~([3]),这些患者需要在6～12个月后行确定性腹壁重建,常需应用腹壁分离技术~([4])或生物补片~([5])等人工材料,可能发生肠瘘、切口感染等并发症,     

放射性心脏损伤动物模型相关实验研究进展

当利用放射线对胸部恶性肿瘤进行治疗时，位于纵隔的心脏会不可幸免受到照射，从而诱发放射性心脏损伤（radiation-induced heart disease, RIHD）。随着手术以及放化疗技术的提升，肿瘤患者生存时间得到延长，使得RIHD这一放疗远期并发症被越来越多的报道。因此，学者们对于RIHD的研究逐渐升温。目前国内外学者关于该疾病尚未形成统一的认识，临床上缺乏有效阻止其发生的方法。动物模型研究可为临床该疾病治疗及预防提供可靠证据，为此本文回顾分析近年来放射性心脏损伤动物模型实验研究情况，旨在为后续实验开展及临床应用提供参考。     

Effects of Price,Information, and Transactions Cost Interventions to Raise Voluntary Enrollment in a Social Health Insurance Scheme: A Randomized Experiment in the Philippines

A cluster randomized experiment was undertaken testing two sets of interventions encouraging enrollment in the Individually Paying Program (IPP), the voluntary component of the Philippines' social health insurance program. In early 2011, 1037 unenrolled IPP‐eligible families in 179 randomly selected intervention municipalities were given an information kit and offered a 50% premium subsidy valid until the end of 2011; 383 IPP‐eligible families in 64 control municipalities were not. In February 2012, the 787 families in the intervention sites who were still IPP‐eligible but had not enrolled had their vouchers extended, were resent the enrollment kits and received SMS reminders. Half the group also received a ‘handholding’ intervention: in the endline interview, the enumerator offered to help complete the enrollment form, deliver it to the insurer's office in the provincial capital, and mail the membership cards. The main intervention raised the enrollment rate by 3 percentage points (ppts) (p = 0.11), with an 8 ppt larger effect (p < 0.01) among city‐dwellers, consistent with travel time to the insurance office affecting enrollment. The handholding intervention raised enrollment by 29 ppts (p < 0.01), with a smaller effect (p < 0.01) among city‐dwellers, likely because of shorter travel times, and higher education levels facilitating unaided completion of the enrollment form. Copyright © The World Bank Health Economics © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

在生物化学教学中培养医学生的科研创新能力

在教学过程中潜移默化培养医学生的科研创新能力，是实践新时代医学教育改革新理念的有益探索。生物化学是医学生的重要专业基础课程之一，探讨在生物化学教学过程中通过多种教学方法培养学生对科研的兴趣，同时，结合科研新进展，开拓学生的视野，培养学生的创新思维，提高医学生科研创新能力的思路。     

Cefoperazone-sulbactam and risk of coagulation disorders or bleeding: a retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT

Objectives: Limited evidence has suggested that cefoperazone-sulbactam causes coagulation disorders and bleeding.

Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective study to compare patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam versus those treated with cefoperazone-tazobactam or ceftazidime. Propensity-score matching was used to explore whether treatment with cefoperazone-sulbactam increased the risk of prothrombin time (PT) prolongation, coagulation disorders, and bleeding, or decreased platelets (PLT).

Results: The cohort included 23,242 patients. Among patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam, the risk of PT prolongation, coagulation disorders, decreased PLT, and bleeding was 5.3%, 9.2%, 15.7%, and 4.2%, respectively. Propensity-score matching analyses suggested that cefoperazone-sulbactam increased the risk of PT prolongation (aOR 2.26, 95% CI 1.61–3.18), coagulation disorders (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.43–2.30), and decreased PLT (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.25–1.72), but not increase bleeding (aOR 1.05, 95% CI 0.79–1.40) compared with ceftazidime. Patients receiving cefoperazone-sulbactam had higher risk of PT prolongation (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.11–2.10), coagulation disorders (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.21–1.95), but not decreased PLT (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81–1.07) or bleeding (aOR 1.11, 95% CI 0.87–1.42), compared with those receiving cefoperazone-tazobactam.

Conclusion: Cefoperazone-sulbactam may be associated with a higher risk of PT prolongation and coagulation disorders compared with cefoperazone-tazobactam and ceftazidime.