儿童臀肌挛缩症免疫发病机理的研究

本文对４１例儿童臀肌挛缩症患者外周血及３２例儿童臀肌挛缩症臀肌进行了系统的免疫学研究。结果表明：儿童臀肌挛缩症患者免疫调节功能紊乱，红细胞免疫功能低下，臀肌组织免疫复合物沉积，臀肌小血管数目减少及管壁损伤。由此认为免疫病理因素是儿童臀肌挛缩症的主要发病机理。     

小脑和脑干梗塞致突发性耳聋

目的:了解小脑和脑干梗塞引起的突发性耳聋的临床特点.探讨其发病机制.方法:回顾性分析12例小脑和脑干梗塞所致突发性耳聋的临床资料.结果:该组患者主要临床表现为耳聋、眩晕、耳鸣、眼震、同侧颜面麻木感.头颅CT或MRI发现小脑或脑干有小于2 cm的梗塞灶.结论:发病机制主要为小脑前下动脉(AlCA)供血不足使小脑脑桥角或脑干缺血,损伤该区域的耳蜗神经和听神经传导通路,导致耳聋.小脑和脑干梗塞的诊断主要依据临床表现、CT或MRI检查.     

运用原位DNA末端标记法研究细胞凋亡对乳腺癌预后的影响

研究临床乳腺癌标本中细胞凋亡的发生情况,评价其在预测后在的意义。方法搜集９１例浸润性乳腺癌的石蜡组织切片,运用原位ＤＮＡ断裂位点的末端标记法,检测细胞凋亡,计算凋亡细胞占肿瘤细胞的百分比,求得凋亡指数。结果本组病例细胞凋亡发生率为９１．２％,凋亡指数分为两组：０～０．２１和０．２８～０．６２,凋亡指数高低与腋淋巴结转称相关（Ｐ＜０．０１）。生存率单因素分析中,凋亡指数高的病例,无病生存率（Ｐ＝０．００９５）及总生存率（Ｐ＝０．０３４８）均优于凋亡指数低的病例。但Ｃｏｘ模型多因素分析末能指示凋亡指数是一个独立的预后指标。结论在乳腺癌组织中,细胞凋亡是一种自发现象,其发生情况各有不同,研究初步提示了细胞凋亡在乳腺癌预后中的作用,了解了凋亡和腋淋巴结转移的相关性。     

米非司酮对妊娠期尖锐湿疣的疗效观察

目的 探讨米非司酮对妊娠期尖锐湿疣的疗效。方法 将早孕合并尖锐湿疣的48例患分为实验组28例,对照组20例。实验组口服米非司酮,对照组行激光治疗,观察一周内尖锐湿疣组织的脱落情况,并作X^2检验。结果实验组尖锐湿疣组织脱落情况明显优于对照组(P<0．01)。结论米非司酮对妊娠期尖锐湿疣有很好的疗效。     

人眼晶体悬韧带的张力测定

目的:进行人眼晶体悬韧带部位及其张力的测定。　方法:对26只离体尸眼进行测定。悬韧带的最大张力规定为:在其放松及最大伸张情况下,从睫状突到嵌入晶体前囊膜内的悬韧带的距离的差值。　　结果:悬韧带在拉断之前平均能被拉长4.48±1.78mm,年轻组为5.33±1.19mm,老年组为2.17±0.70mm。无韧带区老年组为6.98±0.70mm,年轻组为7.66±0.42mm,平均为7.48±0.58mm。结论:悬韧带具有一定的张力,随着年龄的增长,悬韧带有向囊膜中心生长的趋势,无韧带区随年龄的增加而减小,悬韧带的张力随年龄的增加而减少。     

Effects of Aging and Advanced Glycation on Gene Expression in Cerebrum and Spleen of Mice^1

Objective To analyze the effects of aging or advanced glycation on gene expression in the cerebrum and spleen of female C57BL/6J mice. Methods The gene expression profile wasdetermined by using cDNA expression arrays containing 588 cDNA.     

Bisulfite-containing propofol: is it a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan for induction of anesthesia?

Propofol (Diprivan(TM); AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) is a commonly used drug for the induction of general anesthesia in the ambulatory setting. With the availability of a new bisulfite-containing generic formulation of propofol, questions have arisen regarding its cost effectiveness and safety compared with Diprivan(TM). Two hundred healthy outpatients were randomly assigned, according to a double-blinded protocol, to receive either Diprivan(TM) or bisulfite-containing propofol 1.5 mg/kg IV as part of a standardized induction sequence. Maintenance of anesthesia consisted of either desflurane (4%-8% end-tidal) or sevoflurane (1%-2% end-tidal) in combination with a remifentanil infusion (0.125 microg x kg(-1) x min(-1) IV). Patient assessments included pain on injection, induction time, hemodynamic and bispectral electroencephalographic changes during induction, emergence time, and incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The two propofol groups were comparable demographically, and the induction times and bispectral index values during the induction were also similar. However, the bisulfite-containing formulation was associated with less severe pain on injection (5% vs 11%), with fewer patients recalling pain on injection after surgery (38% vs. 51%, P<0.05). None of the patients manifested allergic-type reactions after the induction of anesthesia. The acquisition cost (average wholesale price in US dollars) of a 20-mL ampoule of Diprivan(TM) was $15 compared with $13 for the bisulfite-containing propofol formulation. Therefore, we concluded that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM) for the induction of outpatient anesthesia. Implications: Bisulfite-containing propofol and Diprivan(TM) (AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE) were similar with respect to their induction characteristics; however, the generic formulation was associated with a smaller incidence of injection pain. Assuming that the drug costs are similar, these data suggest that the bisulfite-containing formulation of propofol is a cost-effective alternative to Diprivan(TM).