下颌骨延长术后牵张器拆除时机的实验研究

目的 :研究家兔下颌骨延长术后新生骨回缩情况 ,确定牵张器的拆除时机。方法 :成年家兔 16只 ,体重 2 .4～ 2 .6kg ,随机等分为 4组 ,每组 4只 ;行双侧下颌骨骨切开术 ,采用内置式牵张器对双侧下颌骨同时进行牵引。延迟期 :7d ;牵张期 :10d ;牵引速率 0 .5mm/次 ,2次 /d ;保持期分别为 2周、4周、8周、12周。保持期后行第二次手术取出牵张器 ,并同时植入钛钉为参照 ,判断下颌骨改建后新成骨有无缩短 ,观察期为 8周。结果 :保持期为 2周、4周组的实验动物新生骨在 8周后明显回缩 ,分别为 2 .1± 1.2mm、1.4± 1.3mm ;而保持期 8周、12周组 ,8周后新生骨未见明显回缩。结论 :兔下颌骨牵张延长术后 ,牵张器应在保持期 8周拆除 ;拆除过早 ,新生骨区产生明显回缩。     

One- and two-stage surgical revision of peri-prosthetic joint infection of the hip: a pooled individual participant data analysis of 44 cohort studies

One-stage and two-stage revision strategies are the two main options for treating established chronic peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip; however, there is uncertainty regarding which is the best treatment option. We aimed to compare the risk of re-infection between the two revision strategies using pooled individual participant data (IPD). Observational cohort studies with PJI of the hip treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes were retrieved by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; as well as email contact with investigators. We analysed IPD of 1856 participants with PJI of the hip from 44 cohorts across four continents. The primary outcome was re-infection (recurrence of infection by the same organism(s) and/or re-infection with a new organism(s)). Hazard ratios (HRs) for re-infection were calculated using Cox proportional frailty hazards models. After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 222 re-infections were recorded. Re-infection rates per 1000 person-years of follow-up were 16.8 (95% CI 13.6–20.7) and 32.3 (95% CI 27.3–38.3) for one-stage and two-stage strategies respectively. The age- and sex-adjusted HR of re-infection for two-stage revision was 1.70 (0.58–5.00) when compared with one-stage revision. The association remained consistently absent after further adjustment for potential confounders. The HRs did not vary importantly in clinically relevant subgroups. Analysis of pooled individual patient data suggest that a one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as a two-stage revision strategy in treating PJI of the hip.     

Surveillance in the field: Over-identification of Ebola suspect cases and its contributing factors in West African at-risk contexts

During an Ebola outbreak, the WHO recommends that health professionals consider people as suspect cases (SCs) when they show key signs such as the sudden onset of high fever or specific symptoms after having had contact with a suspect or confirmed Ebola case. SCs should then get care, be isolated and be reported to health authorities until the Ebola virus disease is confirmed through a lab test. This exploratory study aims to understand this identification process in the field based on a qualitative analysis of the diagnosis and therapeutic itineraries of 19 SCs in Cote d’Ivoire and Senegal (2014–2015). Results indicate that the main criteria for SC identification at the field level were fever (understood broadly) and provenance from a highly affected country (applied indiscriminately). WHO criteria were not followed in at least 9 of the 19 cases. Several medical, social and cultural factors favour over-identification of people as SCs, including relativism in defining ‘high fever’, placism, humanitarian or securitarian bias, issues in categorising SC's contact cases, and the context of fear. To avoid undue categorisation and its possible harmful social effects, the WHO definition should be implemented more carefully in various contexts and with greater consideration for ethical issues, while prioritising diagnosis strategies with higher specificity.