大剂量干扰素辅助治疗口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤的效果及安全性研究

目的 研究大剂量干扰素辅助治疗口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤的临床效果,探讨治疗应用的安全性。方法 选取我院于2017年11月～2018年11月收治的80例口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤患者作为研究对象,按照治疗方法不同分为两组,每组40例。对照组患者仅采用单纯手术治疗,治疗组在此基础上采用大剂量干扰素辅助治疗。观察两组患者生存情况、疾病复发情况以及毒副反应。结果 治疗组患者生存期限及无复发生存期明显长于对照组,治疗组复发率为5.00%,明显低于对照组的22.50%,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。两组患者毒副反应比较差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论 口腔黏膜恶性黑色素瘤患者予以大剂量干扰素辅助疗法安全有效,值得临床推广。     

断指再植手术对手指钝性离断伤的治疗效果研究

目的：探析手指钝性离断伤采用断指再植手术治疗的临床效果。方法整群选择2013年6月—2014年6月期间该院收治的手指钝性离断伤患者59例为研究对象，对其临床治疗资料进行回顾性分析。结果该组的59例患者中，术后断指再成活54例，占91.53%，5例失败，占8.47%，其中手指远端坏死3例，占5.08%，2例术后感染，占3.39%。结论临床上给予手指钝性离断伤患者断指再植手术治疗，可以获得较好的效果，有助于恢复患者的手指功能。     

Measuring the appropriateness of carbamazepine and valproic acid prescribing and utilization using a newly implemented online system in the Tabuk Region of Saudi Arabia

Epilepsy is a common neurologic disorder, which is efficiently treated with carbamazepine and valproic acid. Moreover, Saudi Ministry of Health implemented a new E-system for Poison Control Centers called Awtar to enhance technology utilization in ensuring patients’ satisfaction and to improve treatment outcomes. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess appropriateness of indication of requests and therapeutic levels of carbamazepine and valproic acid in Tabuk area, North West Saudi Arabia. This is a retrospective observational study conducted in Poison Control & Forensic Chemistry Center, Tabuk, Saudi Arabia. Patients’ data were obtained for years 2018 and 2019. The blood levels of carbamazepine and valproic acid were measured by Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) Unit. We selected patients treated with either valproic acid or carbamazepine alone without any history of drug allergy. Data of 264 patients were extracted from Awtar E-system. Serum carbamazepine levels were within therapeutic range in 114 patients (75.50%), above-therapeutic range in 13 patients (8.61%) and sub-therapeutic levels in 24 patients (15.89%). Regarding serum valproic acid, it is within therapeutic range in 62 patients (54.87%), above-therapeutic range in 11 patients (9.73%) and sub-therapeutic levels in 40 patients (35.40%). In conclusion, this study gives information about partial appropriateness of usage of carbamazepine and low level of appropriateness of valproic acid. However, more efforts are needed to improve results of appropriateness of indication of antiepileptic drugs.     

Reduced nontarget embolization and increased targeted delivery with a reflux-control microcatheter in a swine model

PurposeTo evaluate the potential differences in non-target embolization and vessel microsphere filling of a reflux-control microcatheter (RCM) compared to a standard end-hole microcatheter (SEHM) in a swine model.Materials and methodsRadiopaque microspheres were injected with both RCM and SEHM (2.4-Fr and 2.7-Fr) in the kidneys of a preclinical swine model. Transarterial renal embolization procedures with RCM or SEHM were performed in both kidneys of 14 pigs. Renal arteries were selectively embolized with an automated injection protocol of radio-opaque microspheres. Ex-vivo X-ray microtomography images of the kidneys were utilized to evaluate the embolization by quantification of the deposition of injected microspheres in the target vs. the non-target area of injection. X-ray microtomography images were blindly analyzed by five interventional radiologists. The degree of vessel filling and the non-target embolization were quantified using a scale from 1 to 5 for each parameter. An analysis of variance was used to compare the paired scores.ResultsTotal volumes of radio-opaque microspheres injected were similar for RCM (11.5 ± 3.6 [SD] mL; range: 6–17 mL) and SEHM (10.6 ± 5.2 [SD] mL; range: 4–19 mL) (P = 0.38). The voxels enhanced ratio in the target (T) vs. non-target (NT) areas was greater with RCM (T = 98.3% vs. NT = 1.7%) than with SEHM (T = 89% vs. NT = 11%) but the difference was not significant (P = 0.30). The total score blindly given by the five interventional radiologists was significantly different between RCM (12.3 ± 2.1 [SD]; range: 6–15) and the standard catheter (11.3 ± 2.5 [SD]; range: 4–15) (P = 0.0073), with a significant decrease of non-target embolization for RCM (3.8 ± 1.3 [SD]; range: 3.5–4.2) compared to SEHM (3.2 ± 1.5 [SD]; range: 2.9–3.5) (P = 0.014).ConclusionIn an animal model, RCM microcatheters reduce the risk of non-target embolization from 11% to 1.7%, increasing the delivery of microspheres of 98% to the target vessels, compared to SEHM microcatheters.