Treatment of multiple adjacent RT 1 gingival recessions with the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) technique and a collagen matrix or palatal connective tissue graft: 9-year results of a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Clinical Oral Investigations - To evaluate t he long-term outcomes following treatment of RT 1 multiple adjacent gingival recessions (MAGR) using the modified coronally advanced tunnel (MCAT) with...     

Update PONV – Was gibt es Neues bei der Prophylaxe und Therapie von postoperativer Übelkeit und postoperativem Erbrechen?

Die Anaesthesiologie - Auch wenn für Anästhesiologen über Jahrzehnte die Prophylaxe und Therapie postoperativer Schmerzen im Rahmen des postoperativen Patientenkomforts an vorderster...     

寰枢椎后路柔性固定的生物力学研究

目的分析细棒、PEEK棒固定对寰枢关节稳定性的影响。方法采用6具新鲜成人枕骨(occipital bone,Oc)~颈椎C4节段进行测试,模拟以下手术及固定状态:①完整状态;②损伤状态:枢椎齿状突II型骨折;③坚强固定:寰枢椎均采用普通椎弓根螺钉固定,直径3.5 mm钛棒连接;④PEEK棒:直径3.5 mm的PEEK棒连接;⑤细棒:直径2.0 mm钛棒连接。采用重复测量实验设计,在完整、损伤和不同的固定状态下,通过脊柱试验机对标本分别施加1.5 N·m的前屈/后伸、左/右侧弯和左/右轴向旋转的纯力偶矩。采用Optotrak三维运动测量系统连续采集标本运动,分析寰枢椎之间角度运动范围和中性区。结果采用直径3.5 mm的钛棒,2.0 mm的细棒以及3.5 mm的PEEK棒固定后,在前屈、后伸、侧弯和旋转方向上均显著减小了固定节段的运动范围(P<0.05)。直径3.5 mm和2.0 mm的棒固定后的运动范围,在各个方向上无显著性差异。PEEK棒固定的运动范围仅在侧弯方向上大于坚强固定(P=0.005),其他方向无显著性差异。3种固定方式在屈伸、侧弯和旋转方向上均显著减小了固定节段的中性区(P<0.05)。各种固定方式之间相比较,无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论在寰枢关节采用直径2.0 mm的细棒固定,与坚强固定的稳定性相当。采用直径3.5 mm的PEEK棒固定,在前屈、后伸、旋转方向上与坚强固定的稳定性相当,在侧弯方向上弱于坚强固定。     

A systematic review of the methodological quality of economic evaluations in genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders

PurposeUnderstanding the value of genetic screening and testing for monogenic disorders requires high-quality, methodologically robust economic evaluations. This systematic review sought to assess the methodological quality among such studies and examined opportunities for improvement.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science for economic evaluations of genetic screening/testing (2013-2019). Methodological rigor and adherence to best practices were systematically assessed using the British Medical Journal checklist.ResultsAcross the 47 identified studies, there were substantial variations in modeling approaches, reporting detail, and sophistication. Models ranged from simple decision trees to individual-level microsimulations that compared between 2 and >20 alternative interventions. Many studies failed to report sufficient detail to enable replication or did not justify modeling assumptions, especially for costing methods and utility values. Meta-analyses, systematic reviews, or calibration were rarely used to derive parameter estimates. Nearly all studies conducted some sensitivity analysis, and more sophisticated studies implemented probabilistic sensitivity/uncertainty analysis, threshold analysis, and value of information analysis.ConclusionWe describe a heterogeneous body of work and present recommendations and exemplar studies across the methodological domains of (1) perspective, scope, and parameter selection; (2) use of uncertainty/sensitivity analyses; and (3) reporting transparency for improvement in the economic evaluation of genetic screening/testing.