The use of computed tomography-guided stereotactic techniques in the treatment of brain stem abscesses

A case of a brain stem abscess that was successfully treated using CT guided stereotaxy together with antibiotic therapy is presented. The literature is reviewed and the role of stereotaxy in the treatment of brain stem abscess is discussed.     

Permanent low-activity iodine-125 implants for cerebral metastases

Beginning in 1987, selected patients with metastatic braintumors were treated with permanent implants of low-activityradioactive iodine-125 (¹²⁵I) seeds. These patients underwent craniotomy,gross total resection of the metastatic lesion, andplacement of the seeds. In general, criteria fortreatment included the presence of a recurrent tumorwith a volume too large to permit radiosurgery,and a Karnofsky Performance Score of 70 orhigher. Thirteen patients underwent 14 implant procedures; allreceived external whole-brain radiotherapy. Implant dose ranged from43 Gy to 132 Gy, with a meanof 83 Gy. Survival after implantation ranged from2 weeks to almost 9 years, with amedian of 9 months. Clinical and radiographic localcontrol was obtained in 9 patients. Two patientsdied of acute, postoperative complications within a monthof implantation, so no information regarding tumor controlis available for them. Late complications included abone flap infection in one patient and aCSF leak in another; both were treated withoutfurther sequelae.These results demonstrate that permanent ¹²⁵I implants canresult in good survival and quality of life,and occasionally can yield long-term survival. Potentially, itis a cost-effective treatment in that a separateprocedure for stereotactic implantation or radiosurgery is notneeded, as is the case with the useof temporary high-activity seeds. The permanent implantation itselfadds less than 10 minutes to the craniotomy,and the risk of symptomatic radiation necrosis islow. We recommend consideration of this procedure inpatients harboring large, recurrent metastatic tumors that requirefurther surgery.     

Slow Infusion of Low‐dose Ketamine Reduces Bothersome Side Effects Compared to Intravenous Push: A Double‐blind,Double‐dummy,Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective

We compared the analgesic efficacy and incidence of side effects when low‐dose (0.3 mg/kg) ketamine (LDK) is administered as a slow infusion (SI) over 15 minutes versus an intravenous push (IVP) over 1 minute.

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, double‐blind, double‐dummy, placebo‐controlled trial of adult ED patients presenting with moderate to severe pain (numerical rating scale [NRS] score ≥ 5). Patients received 0.3 mg/kg ketamine administered either as a SI or a IVP. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing any psychoperceptual side effect over 60 minutes. A secondary outcome was incidence of moderate or greater psychoperceptual side effects. Additional outcomes included reduction in pain NRS scores at 60 minutes and percent maximum summed pain intensity difference (%SPID).

Results

Fifty‐nine participants completed the study. A total of 86.2% of the IVP arm and 70.0% of the SI arm experienced any side effect (difference = 16.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = –5.4 to 37.8). We found a large reduction in moderate or greater psychoperceptual side effects with SI administration—75.9% reported moderate or greater side effects versus 43.4% in the SI arm (difference = 32.5%, 95% CI = 7.9 to 57.1). Additionally, the IVP arm experienced more hallucinations (n = 8, 27.6%) than the SI arm (SI n = 2, 6.7%, difference = 20.9%, 95% CI = 1.8 to 43.4). We found no significant differences in analgesic efficacy. At 60 minutes, the mean %SPID values in the IVP and SI arms were 39.9 and 33.5%, respectively, with a difference of 6.5% (95% CI = –5.8 to 18.7).

Conclusion

Most patients who are administered LDK experience a psychoperceptual side effect regardless of administration via SI or IVP. However, patients receiving LDK as a SI reported significantly fewer moderate or greater psychoperceptual side effects and hallucinations with equivalent analgesia.

     

Sensitivity and Specificity of Standard and Rapid HIV-Antibody Tests Evaluated by Seroconversion and Non-Seroconversion Low-Titre Panels

Background and objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the relative sensitivity and specificity of commercial HIV-antibody assays using seroconversion, non-seroconversion panels, and negative blood donor samples. Materials and methods: We evaluated the sensitivity of five standard ELISA HIV-antibody assays: Vironostika HIV Uni-Form II, Abbott recombinant HIV-1/HIV-2 third-generation EIA, Biotest Anti-HIV-1/-2 recombinant, Recombigen HIV-1/HIV-2 EIA and Wellcozyme HIV 1+2 (VK54/55), and three rapid screening tests, Capillus HIV-1/HIV-2, Abbott Test Pack HIV-1/HIV-2 third-generation EIA, and Sensy-Test HIV 1/2. All tests were assessed using four panels of plasma samples obtained from individuals who were seroconverting and a low-titre HIV-antibody panel of samples. Specificity of the standard screening tests was determined on 3,500 HIV-antibody-negative blood donor samples. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in sensitivity between the five standard ELISA tests. One of these tests was significantly less specific than the others. The standard ELISA tests detected all the low-titre HIV-antibody-positive samples. Two of the rapid screening tests were significantly less sensitive on the seroconversion panels and all three tests failed to detect at least one of the positive samples in the low-titre panel. Conclusions: The additional risk of using one or other of the standard ELISA tests under review of not detecting all HIV-positive units of blood is not statistically significant. Using some of the rapid screening tests will, however, add a significant additional risk. A rapid screening test should therefore be adopted only after careful consideration of the effect of a possible lack of sensitivity on the safety of the blood supply.