2 resultados para correlation of answers
em Bucknell University Digital Commons - Pensilvania - USA
Resumo:
More than 250,000 hip fractures occur annually in the United States and the most common fracture location is the femoral neck, the weakest region of the femur. Hip fixation surgery is conducted to repair hip fractures by using a Kirschner (K-) wire as a temporary guide for permanent bone screws. Variation has been observed in the force required to extract the K-wire from the femoral head during surgery. It is hypothesized that a relationship exists between the K-wire pullout force and the bone quality at the site of extraction. Currently, bone mineral density (BMD) is used as a predictor for bone quality and strength. However, BMD characterizes the entire skeletal system and does not account for localized bone quality and factors such as lifestyle, nutrition, and drug use. A patient’s BMD may not accurately describe the quality of bone at the site of fracture. This study aims to investigate a correlation between the force required to extract a K-wire from femoral head specimens and the quality of bone. A procedure to measure K-wire pullout force was developed and tested with pig femoral head specimens. The procedure was implemented on 8 human osteoarthritic femoral head specimens and the average pullout force for each ranged from 563.32 ± 240.38 N to 1041.01 ± 346.84 N. The data exhibited significant variation within and between each specimen and no statistically significant relationships were determined between pullout force and patient age, weight, height, BMI, inorganic to organic matter ratio, and BMD. A new testing fixture was designed and manufactured to merge the clinical and research environments by enabling the physician to extract the K-wire from each bone specimen himself. The new device allows the physician to gather tactile feedback on the relative ease of extraction while load history is recorded similar to the previous procedure for data acquisition. Future work will include testing human bones with the new device to further investigate correlations for predicting bone quality.
Resumo:
In my thesis, I incorporate both psychological research and personal narratives in order to explain why, in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the United States officially recognized Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder while the Vietnamese government did not. The absence of Vietnamese studies on the impact of PTSD on veterans, in comparison to the abundance of research collected on American soldiers, is reflective not of a disparity in the actual prevalence of the disorder, but of the influence of political policy on the scope of Vietnamese psychology. Personal narratives from Vietnamese civilians and soldiers thus reveal accounts of trauma otherwise hidden due to the absence of Vietnamese psychological research. Although these two nations conspicuously differed in their respective responses to the prevalence of psychological trauma in war veterans, these responses demonstrated that both the recognition and rejection of PTSD was a result of sociopolitical factors: political ideologies, rather than scientific reasons, dictated whether the postwar trajectory of psychological research focused on fully exploring the impact of PTSD on veteran populations. The association of military defeat with psychological trauma thus fixed attention on certain groups of veterans, including former American and South Vietnamese soldiers, while ignoring the impact of trauma on veterans of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army. The correlation of a soldier¿s ideological background with psychological trauma, rather than exposure to actual traumatic experiences, demonstrates that cultural and sociopolitical factors are far more influential in the construction of PTSD than objective indicators of the disorder¿s prevalence. Culturally-constructed responses to disorders such as PTSD therefore account for the subjective treatment of mental illness. The American and Vietnamese responses to veterans suffering from PTSD both demonstrated that the evidence of mental health problems in an individual does not guarantee an immediate or appropriate diagnosis and treatment regimen. External authorities whose primary aims are not necessarily concerned with the objective treatment of all victims of mental illness subjectively dictate mental health care policy, and therefore risk ignoring or marginalizing the needs of individuals in need of proper treatment.