上颌阻生尖牙的临床诊断与治疗

目的：对阻生上颌尖牙的病因、临床检查、诊断及其相应的治疗进行了临床研究。方法：选取57例上颌尖牙阻生患者，通过病史询问、临床检查、X线片和模型测量的综合分析，从临床角度对阻生牙进行了诊断分类，采用不同的方法进行了矫治，并对矫治效果进行了评估。结果：采取适宜有效的治疗办法，均取得了满意的治疗效果，牙周膜愈合成功率达100％，活髓牙成功率达93．6％，牙龈形态良好者达89．4％。结论：尖牙阻生情况各异，治疗方法多样，根据临床分类选择合适的治疗方法，是矫治成功的关键。     

经胼胝体穹隆间人路切除下丘脑内型错构瘤

目的探讨下丘脑内型错构瘤的手术治疗方法。方法报告4例下丘脑内型错构瘤,采用右额后开颅经胼胝体-透明隔-穹隆间入路切除下丘脑内型错构瘤。结果4例均为儿童,男女为31,均以癫痫发作为主要症状,错构瘤为大部切除或部分切除,术后低钠血症1例,轻度尿崩1例,无其他合并症。随诊半年至1.5年,无任何癫痫发作。结论经胼胝体-透明膈-穹隆间入路是下丘脑内型错构瘤的最佳手术入路,错构瘤大部切除或部分切除即可取得满意疗效。     

脑囊虫病人血清、脑脊液中抗体在MRI各期的变化

目的 检测脑囊虫病人血清和脑脊液中抗体在MRI各期的变化。方法 用抑制性ELISA法检测血清及脑脊液中的抗体。同时根据MRI表现将病例分为活动期、退变期、非活动期。结果 在69个病例中，脑脊液中抗体阳性率分别是：活动期75．00％，退变期62．50％，非活动期17.24％；血清中是81．25％、16．67％、22．22％。在相应各期中，脑脊液和血清抗体阳性率无显著性差别。结论 在影像学的不同时期抗体阳性率存在明显的变化。     

肺癌组织中血管内皮生长因子受体Flt1及KDR的表达及其与肿瘤转移和预后的关系

①目的　探讨肺癌中血管内皮生长因子受体Flt1、KDR的表达与其转移及预后的关系。②方法　应用免疫组织化学PowerVisionTM PV90 0 0法 ,测定 75例肺癌标本中Flt1、KDR的表达。③结果　肺癌组织中Flt1、KDR的表达较为广泛 ,主要位于肿瘤细胞胞浆及胞膜上 ,纤维母细胞和血管内皮细胞胞浆中亦有表达。Flt1、KDR在肿瘤细胞中的阳性率均显著高于在间质纤维母细胞中的表达 (χ2 =6 .0 7、5 .88,P <0 .0 5 )。肿瘤细胞及纤维母细胞中该两种受体的阳性率在不同年龄、不同性别及不同病理类型、不同病理分级之间差异均无显著性 (χ2 =0 .0 1～4 .84 ,P >0 .0 5 ;P =0 .2 9～ 0 .79)。肿瘤细胞中Flt1、KDR的阳性表达率在 3组不同大小的肿瘤间差异均有显著性(χ2 =1 0 .35、7.2 9,P <0 .0 5 ) ,而纤维母细胞中差异均无显著性 (χ2 =2 .86、2 .5 6 ,P >0 .0 5 ) ;肿瘤细胞及纤维母细胞中Flt1、KDR的阳性率在淋巴结有、无转移两组间的差异均有显著性 (χ2 =4 .72～ 9.32 ,P <0 .0 5 ) ,在 3组不同术后生存时间病人间亦均有显著性差异 (χ2 =8.81～ 1 9.1 9,P <0 .0 5 )。肿瘤细胞中Flt1、KDR的表达呈极显著性正相关 (r =0 .4 4 ,P <0 .0 1 )。④结论　肺癌的生长主要依赖自分泌机制 ,联合检测Flt1、KDR可能对肺癌转移     

'Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted'– towards a critical exploration of modes of satisfaction measurement in sheltered housing

This paper reflects on a research project funded by a consortium of leading sheltered housing (SH) providers and their regulatory body, the Housing Corporation. The project aimed to ascertain which aspects of SH older people perceived to be central to their satisfaction and the methods they judged most appropriate to measuring this. We outline key policy developments of importance to SH (specifically the development of performance measurement regimes), and changes in the nature of SH, which are driving providers to re‐evaluate how they measure user satisfaction. We discuss the aims of the project, our methodology and findings, and conclude by raising critical questions about the process of measuring satisfaction within an increasingly managerialised housing system. We argue that this favours standardised methods of information gathering (such as questionnaires) rather than engage with clients in order to develop methods and systems capable of eliciting qualitative issues of concern to them. Our conclusions are, we believe, applicable to health and social care provision, where similar tensions exist around performance measurement and user satisfaction.