Femoral head injuries: Which treatment strategy can be recommended?

Despite different operative and non-operative treatment regimens, the outcome after femoral head fractures has changed little over the past decades. The initial trauma itself as well as secondary changes such as posttraumatic osteoarthritis, avascular necrosis or heterotopic ossification is often responsible for severe loss of function of the afflicted hip joint. Anatomic reduction of all fracture fragments seems to be a major influencing factor in determining the outcome quality. Eight years ago we inaugurated a new surgical approach for better access and visualisation for the treatment of femoral head fractures, using the "trochanteric flip" (digastric) osteotomy. Thus inspection of the entire hip joint and accurate fragment reduction under direct visual control are possible. After good initial experiences with this operative procedure we changed our standard treatment regimen to this approach in an attempt to achieve the most accurate anatomic reduction of the femoral head in every affected patient. Between 1998 and 2006 we operated on 12 patients with femoral head fractures associated with posterior hip dislocation, using the new surgical approach. Patients were followed for 2-96 months and outcome was documented with the Merle d'Aubigne and Postel score as well as the Thompson and Epstein score. The posttraumatic formation of heterotopic bone was documented with the Brooker score. Retrospective analysis of these 12 patients showed good or excellent results in 10 patients (83.3%). The two patients with poor outcome developed an avascular necrosis of the femoral head and underwent total hip arthroplasty. Periarticular heterotopic ossification was seen in five patients. In four patients this caused a significantly reduced range of motion and was therefore considered as a posttraumatic complication. The two patients with the most severe heterotopic bone formation (Brooker III and IV) had initially sustained multiple injuries including brain injury. Comparing our results with earlier published series including our own before changing the treatment protocol, the data suggest a favorable outcome in patients with trochanteric flip (digastric) osteotomy for the treatment of femoral head fractures.

[Endocarditis prophylaxis with amoxicillin, clindamycin or erythromycin? Serum bacteriostatic and bactericidal effect against Streptococcus viridans]

The effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis against endocarditis was assessed by testing the bactericidal and bacteriostatic action in serum of 12 healthy volunteers who had taken the recommended antibiotics according to laid down guidelines. Blood was obtained from these subjects every two hours for 12 hours after oral intake of amoxicillin (3 g as a single dose), clindamycin (600 mg a single dose) or erythromycin (1.5 g plus another 0.5 g after six hours), the serum being tested against three Strep. viridans strains. Two of the three strains were "tolerant", i.e. in relation to the minimal inhibition concentration (MIC) their growth was inhibited, but--in relation to the minimal bactericidal concentration (MBC)--they were not killed. A bacteriostatic effect by amoxicillin and clindamycin was demonstrated by a micromethod against all three strains during the 12-hour period. But erythromycin did not achieve bacteriostasis in all serum samples. A bactericidal effect was demonstrated only in those samples that contained amoxicillin, and then only against the non-tolerant of the three strains. These results support the view that amoxicillin and clindamycin are effective in the prophylaxis against Strep. viridans bacteraemia because of their constant bacteriostatic effect, as measured in serum.

Content comparison of health-related quality of life instruments for COPD

BACKGROUND: Due to the increasing importance of quality of life assessments in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, and the increased use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for comparative purposes it is essential to understand the relationship between health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments and the ICF. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the content of recommended COPD-specific HRQL instruments using the ICF as reference. COPD-specific instruments mentioned in widely accepted guidelines were linked to the ICF using standardized linking rules. The degree of agreement between various health professionals was assessed by calculating the kappa statistic. RESULTS: Eleven instruments were included. They varied strongly in the number of concepts contained and the number of ICF categories used to map these concepts. A total of 548 concepts were identified and linked to 60 different ICF categories. Only the single category 'dyspnea' was covered by all instruments, whilst 21 categories were unique to specific instruments. The relationships of the measures with the ICF were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study may aid researchers and clinicians to choose the most appropriate instrument for a specific purpose as well as help compare studies that have used different instruments for HRQL assessment.

Effect of bacterial filter on measurement of interrupter resistance in preschool and school-aged children

BACKGROUND: The interrupter technique is increasingly used in preschool children to assess airway resistance (Rint). Use of a bacterial filter is essential for prevention of cross-infection in a clinical setting. It is not known how large an effect this extra resistance and compliance exert upon interrupter measurements, especially on obstructive airways and in smaller children. We aim to determine the contribution of the filter to Rint, in a sample of children attending lung function testing at an asthma clinic. METHODS: Interrupter measurements were performed according to ATS/ERS guidelines during quiet normal breathing at an expiratory flow trigger of 200 ml s(-1), with the child seated upright with cheeks supported and wearing a nose clip. A minimum of 10 interrupter measurements was made with and without a bacterial filter. Spirometric and plethysmographic tests were also performed. RESULTS: A small but significant difference (0.12 (95% CI 0.06-0.17) kPa s L(-1), P = 0.0002) with 2x SD of 0.34 kPa s L(-1) was observed between Rint with and without filter in 39 children, with a large spread. This difference was not dependent on Rint magnitude, age or height, nor on lung function parameters (effective resistance, forced expiratory volume in 1 sec, and maximal expiratory flow at 50% of expired vital capacity). CONCLUSIONS: A bacterial filter causes a small difference but is not clinically significant, with a wide spread comparable to the variability of the technique and recommended cut-offs for assessing repeatability and bronchodilation. Age, height or severity of obstruction need not be corrected for in general.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy in higher eukaryotes

Research in autophagy continues to accelerate,(1) and as a result many new scientists are entering the field. Accordingly, it is important to establish a standard set of criteria for monitoring macroautophagy in different organisms. Recent reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose.(2,3) There are many useful and convenient methods that can be used to monitor macroautophagy in yeast, but relatively few in other model systems, and there is much confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure macroautophagy in higher eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers of autophagosomes versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway; thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from fully functional autophagy that includes delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of the methods that can be used by investigators who are attempting to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as by reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that investigate these processes. This set of guidelines is not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to verify an autophagic response.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting of observational studies]

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Much of biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalizability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

[The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies]

Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September, 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed explanation and elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the websites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.