From pink to blue and back to pink again: changing the Co( ii ) ligation in a two-dimensional coordination network upon desolvation

Heating of a pink two-dimensional Co(II) coordination network {[Co2(μ2-OH2)(bdc)2(S-nia)2(H2O)(dmf)]·2(dmf)·(H2O)}n (1) built from 1,4-benzenedicarboxylic acid (H2bdc) residues and thionicotinamide (S-nia) ligands initiates a single-crystal-to-single-crystal transition accompanied by removal of both coordinated and co-crystallized solvents. In the dry blue form, [Co(bdc)(S-nia)]n (dry_1), the Co(II) centers changed from an octahedral to a square pyramidal configuration.

When looking back to nothing goes back to nothing

Previous research showed that the eyes revisit the location in which the stimulus has been encoded when visual or verbal information is retrieved from memory. A recent study showed that this behavior still occurs 1 week after encoding, suggesting that visual, spatial and linguistic information is tightly associated with the oculomotor trace and stored as an integrated memory representation. However, it is yet unclear whether looking behavior simply remains stable between encoding and recall or whether it changes over time in a more fine-tuned manner. Here, we investigate the time course of looking behavior during recall in multiple sessions across 1 week. Participants encoded visual objects presented in one of the four locations on the computer screen. In five sessions during the week after encoding, they performed on a visual memory recall task. During retrieval, participants looked back to the encoding location, but only in the recall sessions within 1 day of encoding. We discuss different explanations for the temporal dynamics of looking behavior during recall, searching for the role of eye movements in memory.

Impact of Hybrid Iterative Reconstruction on Agatston Coronary Artery Calcium Scores in Comparison to Filtered Back Projection in Native Cardiac CT

PURPOSE To investigate whether the effects of hybrid iterative reconstruction (HIR) on coronary artery calcium (CAC) measurements using the Agatston score lead to changes in assignment of patients to cardiovascular risk groups compared to filtered back projection (FBP). MATERIALS AND METHODS 68 patients (mean age 61.5 years; 48 male; 20 female) underwent prospectively ECG-gated, non-enhanced, cardiac 256-MSCT for coronary calcium scoring. Scanning parameters were as follows: Tube voltage, 120 kV; Mean tube current time-product 63.67 mAs (50 - 150 mAs); collimation, 2 × 128 × 0.625 mm. Images were reconstructed with FBP and with HIR at all levels (L1 to L7). Two independent readers measured Agatston scores of all reconstructions and assigned patients to cardiovascular risk groups. Scores of HIR and FBP reconstructions were correlated (Spearman). Interobserver agreement and variability was assessed with ĸ-statistics and Bland-Altmann-Plots. RESULTS Agatston scores of HIR reconstructions were closely correlated with FBP reconstructions (L1, R = 0.9996; L2, R = 0.9995; L3, R = 0.9991; L4, R = 0.986; L5, R = 0.9986; L6, R = 0.9987; and L7, R = 0.9986). In comparison to FBP, HIR led to reduced Agatston scores between 97 % (L1) and 87.4 % (L7) of the FBP values. Using HIR iterations L1 - L3, all patients were assigned to identical risk groups as after FPB reconstruction. In 5.4 % of patients the risk group after HIR with the maximum iteration level was different from the group after FBP reconstruction. CONCLUSION There was an excellent correlation of Agatston scores after HIR and FBP with identical risk group assignment at levels 1 - 3 for all patients. Hence it appears that the application of HIR in routine calcium scoring does not entail any disadvantages. Thus, future studies are needed to demonstrate whether HIR is a reliable method for reducing radiation dose in coronary calcium scoring.

Spine radiography in the evaluation of back and neck pain in an orthopaedic emergency clinic

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Despite the recommendations of national and international societies for the treatment of patients with acute neck and back pain, still too many radiologic examinations were performed. The purpose of this study was to analyze and optimize diagnostics and treatment of patients with acute back pain. METHODS The medical records of 484 patients presented to the emergency clinic with acute neck or back pain were analyzed for clinical history, physical examination, radiographic findings and therapy. RESULTS Radiographs of the lumbar, cervical, or thoracic spine were performed in 338 cases (70%). Radiographs were normal in 142 patients (42%) and degenerative changes were identified in 123 patients (36%). Only 2 patients (0.4%) had radiographic findings that had direct therapeutic relevance: 1 patient with metastatic disease and 1 patient with posttraumatic C1-C2 instability. For most patients without sensorimotor deficits and absent specific indications for radiography (“red flags”), therapy was not affected by the results of radiography. CONCLUSIONS Plain radiography of the spine was unnecessary in most patients initially evaluated with non-specific acute back pain and does not improve the clinical outcome. The implementation of national and international guidelines is a slow process, but helps to reduce costs and to protect patients from unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure.

Superior outcomes of decompression with an interlaminar dynamic device versus decompression alone in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis and back pain: a cross registry study.

INTRODUCTION Surgical decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) has been associated with poorer outcomes in patients with pronounced low back pain (LBP) as compared to patients with predominant leg pain. This cross registry study assessed potential benefits of the interlaminar coflex® device as an add-on to bony decompression alone. METHODS Patients with lumbar decompression plus coflex® (SWISSspine registry) were compared with decompressed controls (Spine Tango registry). Inclusion criteria were LSS and a preoperative back pain level of ≥5 points. 1:1 propensity score-based matching was performed. Outcome measures were back and leg pain relief, COMI score improvement, patient satisfaction, complication, and revision rates. RESULTS 50 matched pairs without residual significant differences but age were created. At the 7-9 months follow-up interval the coflex® group had higher back (p=0.014) and leg pain relief (p<0.001) and COMI score improvement (p=0.029) than the decompression group. Patient satisfaction was 90% in both groups. No revision was documented in the coflex® and one in the decompression group (2.0%). DISCUSSION In the short-term, lumbar decompression with coflex® compared with decompression alone in patients with LSS and pronounced LBP at baseline is a safe and effective treatment option that appears beneficial regarding clinical and functional outcomes. However, residual confounding of non-measured covariables may have partially influenced our findings. Also, despite careful inclusion and exclusion of cases the cross registry approach introduces a potential for selection bias that we could not totally control for and that makes additional studies necessary.