Fixator-assisted nailing of tibial fractures: New surgical technique and presentation of first 30 cases

Background

Intramedullary nailing is considered a “gold standard” for treatment of tibial shaft fractures. However, some types of fractures are typically considered as “difficult for nailing”. This group includes the periarticular fractures, fractures of both bones at the same level, comminuted and segmental fractures of the tibia. Fixator-assisted nailing (FAN) is an effective method treatment of these types of fractures. The main requirements for the ideal reduction device are an ease of its installation and an ability of multiplanar fracture reduction. Fixator-assisted nailing (FAN) with the use of two perpendicular to each other monolateral tubular frames perfectly meets these requirements. In this study we present this new surgical technique and the analysis of first 30 cases.

Ingestion of immune bloodmeals and infection of Aedes fowleri, Aedes mcintoshi, and Culex pipiens with Rift Valley fever virus

Rift Valley fever (RVF) virus infection, dissemination, and transmission rates were determined for Aedes fowleri, Aedes mcintoshi and Culex pipiens 7 or 10 days after sequentially feeding to repletion on RVF virus immune hamsters and RVF viremic hamsters, or after feeding on a mixture of RVF virus immune sheep serum and RVF viremic hamster blood through a pledget. No significant differences in infection or dissemination rates were detected among Ae. fowleri and Cx. pipiens feeding to repletion on immune hamsters before or after feeding to repletion on a viremic hamster. Similarly, no significant differences in infection, dissemination, or transmission rates were observed among Ae. fowleri and Cx. pipiens feeding to repletion on immune hamsters or nonimmune (control) hamsters 0 or 24 hr after inoculation with RVF virus. Infection rates were significantly higher for Ae. fowleri (56/66, 85%) and Cx. pipiens (123/148, 83%) fed only on viremic hamsters than for those interrupted to complete feeding on an immune hamster (Ae. fowleri [24/49, 59%], Cx. pipiens [66/131, 50%]) or a nonimmune hamster (Ae. fowleri [32/51, 63%], Cx. pipiens [69/127, 54%]). However, no significant differences were detected in infection, dissemination, or transmission rates among Ae. fowleri, Ae. mcintoshi or Cx. pipiens fed on a viremic hamster and interrupted to complete feeding on an immune vs. a nonimmune hamster. Results from interrupted feeding experiments were significantly different from pledget feeding experiments.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Successful treatment of an infected vascular graft with gentamicin beads

This short report describes the successful healing of an infected axillo-bifemoral graft by the insertion of Gentamicin beads, this technique cannot be recommended for all infected grafts the majority of which will have to be removed and replaced.     

Inter-study differences: How should they influence the interpretation and analysis of results?

In determining the role inter-study variation should play in an overview analysis, it is important to consider three factors: which question one is trying to answer; the degree of similarity or dissimilarity of design, and the degree to which heterogeneity of outcomes can be explained. Three questions one might be interested in are: whether treatment can be effective in some circumstances; whether treatment is effective on average, and whether treatment was effective on average in the trials at hand. Under the assumption of no qualitative interaction, the answers to these questions coincide. The O-E analysis most directly answers the third question. Other analyses are suggested when the first question is of interest, using the aspirin post-MI studies as an example.