Correction to: Influence of oral anticoagulation on success rates and risk of bleeding events after iStent inject implantation combined with phacoemulsification

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - The published online version contains mistake as the author's first name and last name have been interchanged as "Hild...     

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.     

Retrograde inspection vs standard forward view for the detection of colorectal adenomas during colonoscopy: A back-to-back randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND The adenoma detection rate(ADR) is inversely associated with the incidence of interval colorectal cancer and serves as a benchmark quality criterion during screening colonoscopy. However, adenoma miss rates reach up to 26% and studies have shown that a second inspection of the right colon in retroflected view(RFV) can increase ADR.AIM To assess whether inspection of the whole colon in RFV compared to standard forward view(SFV) can increase ADR.METHODS Patients presenting for screening or surveillance colonoscopy were invited to participate in this randomized controlled trial and randomized into two arms. In RFV arm colonoscopy was initially performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon in RFV. In the SFV arm first withdrawal was performed with SFV, followed by a second inspection of the whole colon again with SFV. Number, size and morphology of polyps found during first and second inspection in each colonic segment were recorded and all polyps were removed and sent for histopathology in separate containers.RESULTS Two hundred and five patients were randomly assigned to the RFV(n = 101) and SFV(n = 104) arm. In the RFV arm, both polyp detection rate(PDR) and ADR were increased under second inspection in RFV(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 39.8%, PDR 2~(nd)RFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 35.2%, ADR 2~(nd) RFV: 42%). Likewise, in the SFV arm,PDR and ADR were increased under second inspection(PDR 1~(st) SFV: 37.5%, PDR 2~(nd) SFV: 46.6%; ADR 1~(st) SFV: 34.1%, ADR 2~(nd)SFV: 44.3%) with no significant differences in ADR and PDR between the SFV and RFV arm. Mean number of adenomas per patient(APP) was increased in the RFV and SFV(APP RFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.71; 2~(nd) RFV: 2.38; APP SFV arm: 1~(st) SFV: 1.83, 2~(nd)SFV:2.2). The majority of adenomas additionally found during second inspection in RFV or in SFV were located in the transverse and left-sided colon and were 5 mm in size.CONCLUSION Second inspection of the whole colon leads to increased adenoma detection with no differences between SFV and RFV. Hence, increased detection is most likely a feature of the second inspection itself but not of the inspection mode.     

Patients undergoing recurrent CT exams: assessment of patients with non-malignant diseases,reasons for imaging and imaging appropriateness

To determine percent of patients without malignancy and ≤ 40 years of age with high cumulative radiation doses through recurrent CT exams and assess imaging appropriateness. From the cohort of patients who received cumulative effective dose (CED) of ≥ 100 mSv over a 5-year period, a sub-set was identified with non-malignant disease. The top 50 clinical indications leading to multiple CTs were determined. Clinical decision support (CDS) system scores were analyzed using a widely adopted standard of 1–3 (red) as “not usually appropriate,” 4–6 (yellow) “may or may not be appropriate,” and 7–9 (green) “usually appropriate.” Clinicians reviewed patient records to assess compliance with appropriate use criteria (AUC). 9.6% of patients in our series were with non-malignant conditions and 1.4% with age ≤ 40 years. CDS scores (rounded) were 2% red, 38% yellow, 27% green, and 33% unscored CTs. Clinical society guidelines for CT exams, wherever available, were followed in 87.5 to 100% of cases. AUCs were not available for several clinical indications as also referral guidelines for serial CT imaging. More than half of CT exams were unrelated to follow-up of a primary chronic disease. We are faced with a situation wherein patients in age ≤ 40 years require or are thought to require many CT exams over the course of a few years but the radiation risk creates concern. There is a fair number of conditions for which AUC are not available. Suggested solutions include development of CT scanners with lesser radiation dose and further development of appropriateness criteria.