Reproducibility and day time bias correction of optoelectronic leg volumetry: a prospective cohort study

Background Leg edema is a common manifestation of various underlying pathologies. Reliable measurement tools are required to quantify edema and monitor therapeutic interventions. Aim of the present work was to investigate the reproducibility of optoelectronic leg volumetry over 3 weeks' time period and to eliminate daytime related within-individual variability. Methods Optoelectronic leg volumetry was performed in 63 hairdressers (mean age 45 ± 16 years, 85.7% female) in standing position twice within a minute for each leg and repeated after 3 weeks. Both lower leg (legBD) and whole limb (limbBF) volumetry were analysed. Reproducibility was expressed as analytical and within-individual coefficients of variance (CVA, CVW), and as intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Results A total of 492 leg volume measurements were analysed. Both legBD and limbBF volumetry were highly reproducible with CVA of 0.5% and 0.7%, respectively. Within-individual reproducibility of legBD and limbBF volumetry over a three weeks' period was high (CVW 1.3% for both; ICC 0.99 for both). At both visits, the second measurement revealed a significantly higher volume compared to the first measurement with a mean increase of 7.3 ml ± 14.1 (0.33% ± 0.58%) for legBD and 30.1 ml ± 48.5 ml (0.52% ± 0.79%) for limbBF volume. A significant linear correlation between absolute and relative leg volume differences and the difference of exact day time of measurement between the two study visits was found (P < .001). A therefore determined time-correction formula permitted further improvement of CVW. Conclusions Leg volume changes can be reliably assessed by optoelectronic leg volumetry at a single time point and over a 3 weeks' time period. However, volumetry results are biased by orthostatic and daytime-related volume changes. The bias for day-time related volume changes can be minimized by a time-correction formula.

Gene expression profile of osseointegration of a hydrophilic compared with a hydrophobic microrough implant surface

OBJECTIVES: To compare the gene expression profile of osseointegration associated with a moderately rough and a chemically modified hydrophilic moderately rough surface in a human model. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighteen solid screw-type cylindrical titanium implants, 4 mm long and 2.8 mm wide, with either a moderately rough (SLA) or a chemically modified moderately rough (SLActive) surface were surgically inserted in the retromolar area of nine human volunteers. The devices were removed using a trephine following 4, 7 and 14 days of healing. The tissue surrounding the implant was harvested, total RNA was extracted and microarray analysis was carried out to identify the differences in the transcriptome between the SLA and SLActive surfaces at days 4, 7 and 14. RESULTS: There were no functionally relevant gene ontology categories that were over-represented in the list of genes that were differentially expressed at day 4. However, by day 7, osteogenesis- and angiogenesis-associated gene expression were up-regulated on the SLActive surface. Osteogenesis and angiogenesis appeared to be regulated by BMP and VEGF signalling, respectively. By day 14, VEGF signalling remains up-regulated on the SLActive surface, while BMP signalling was up-regulated on the SLA surface in what appeared to be a delayed compensatory response. Furthermore, neurogenesis was a prominent biological process within the list of differentially expressed genes, and it was influenced by both surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with SLA, SLActive exerts a pro-osteogenic and pro-angiogenic influence on gene expression at day 7 following implant insertion, which may be responsible for the superior osseointegrative properties of this surface.

Wild immunology: converging on the real world

Recently, the Centre for Immunity, Infection and Evolution sponsored a one-day symposium entitled "Wild Immunology." The CIIE is a new Wellcome Trust-funded initiative with the remit to connect evolutionary biology and ecology with research in immunology and infectious diseases in order to gain an interdisciplinary perspective on challenges to global health. The central question of the symposium was, "Why should we try to understand infection and immunity in wild systems?" Specifically, how does the immune response operate in the wild and how do multiple coinfections and commensalism affect immune responses and host health in these wild systems? The symposium brought together a broad program of speakers, ranging from laboratory immunologists to infectious disease ecologists, working on wild birds, unmanaged animals, wild and laboratory rodents, and on questions ranging from the dynamics of coinfection to how commensal bacteria affect the development of the immune system. The meeting on wild immunology, organized by Amy Pedersen, Simon Babayan, and Rick Maizels, was held at the University of Edinburgh on 30 June 2011.