Thyroxine-induced hypermotor seizure

AbstractThyroxine-induced epilepsy is a very rare condition occurring in epileptic patients. Here we report a boy with thyroxine-induced hypermotor seizure (HMS) following thyroxine administration for his central hypothyroidism secondary to surgery and cranial radiation for his brain tumor. After 3 years seizure-free period, he had repeated HMS, seven to eight attacks per day, after initiation l-thyroxine treatment. Following reduction of the daily thyroxine dose, his seizures decreased in frequency. To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of HMS associated with l-thyroxine administration

Neuropathy and Dysautonomia in Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome

WOS: 000351851100006PubMed ID: 28360671Introduction: The aim of our study is to search for the existence of neuropathy, dysautonomia and to identify the correlations of sickness level of patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome (OSAS). Methods: The research is based on the real cases at Dokuz Eylul University of Medicine Sleep and Epilepsy Center, observed during September 2008-May 2009. The patients were selected by polysomnography samples based on 20 persons at same ages with following criteria; high leveled OSAS (AHI >= 30), low OSAS (5 <= AHI<30) and healthy participants. Classical ENMG protocol, symphatic skin response and R-R interval variation test were performed on these samples. Results: High and low leveled OSAS patients had a statistically significant (p<0.05) decrease in the average velocity of motor conduction in right tibialis posterior when compared to the control group. Besides we observed an statistically significant (p<0.05) increase in the average amplitud of symphatic skin responses in high leveled OSAS patients than control group. Conclusion: OSAS indicates a risk of possible peripheral neuropathy and autonomic dysfunction risk increases in positive correlation with level of OSAS

Ictal religious speech in non-dominant temporal lobe epilepsy: three cases

Ictal religious speech and gestures, rare ictal semiological findings, sign the epileptic focus at the non-dominant temporal lobe in the literature. Therefore, we aim to present non-dominant temporal lobe semiological findings, including ictal praying and religious gestures in three cases

Sexual function status in women with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome

Introduction. Several co-morbid diseases have been shown to affect sexual functions in both genders. In the literature, sexual function status in men with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) has been studied; however, sexual functions in women with OSAS have not yet been studied

Identification of the Variations in the CPT1B and CHKB Genes Along with the HLA-DQB1*06:02 Allele in Turkish Narcolepsy Patients and Healthy Persons

The pretrial process of discovery governed by Federal and Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 26 enables plaintiffs in product liability actions to delve where few people have delved before—into a corporation\u27s internal memoranda, competitive practices, and secret product or design information as well as other less sensitive information in a company\u27s possession. Discovery, in this context as in others, is a powerful tool determined by the courts to be necessary for the just litigation of claims. As a balance to the leeway given parties to compel production of information in discovery, federal and Maine courts have the authority under Federal and Maine Rule 26(c) to protect parties and witnesses from the harm that can result from a disclosure of confidential information. The court may enter a protective order, sometimes called a confidentiality order, restricting a party receiving the information from disseminating it or from making any use of the information other than for purposes of the specific litigation. In addition, public access to information after its use in the litigation often is barred by such orders. Irrespective of the legal interests of the parties involved in the case, however, the public outside the legal community may have an interest in the information, and the receiving party may wish to disclose it. This point is brought into focus by the occasional case in which confidential information raises dramatic health issues, such as the recent reports of potential health risks from silicone breast implants. Judicial use of Rule 26(c) to restrict dissemination of discovered information predictably has invited First Amendment claims of free speech. Maine courts are empowered and exhorted by Maine Rule 26(c) to issue protective orders. Unlike the Federal Rule, Maine Rule 26(c) includes an admonition for the courts to exercise their powers to grant a protective order and other controls over discovery “with liberality . . . to protect parties and witnesses.” Whether conscious of the admonition or not, state courts in product liability cases have issued broadly constructed protective orders restricting plaintiffs, their attorneys and their witnesses from revealing information. The risk for all trial courts, confronted with the potential magnitude of discovery problems and hesitant to spend their limited time on this one procedural issue, is that the power to grant protective orders will degenerate into a perfunctory granting of most or even all such requests. The decision to grant such an order becomes perfunctory when the court does so without an appropriate “good cause” determination and without a careful fashioning of the order to minimize its impact on the affected parties. In Maine\u27s courts, despite the admonition to use the protective-order power liberally, the same considerations apply as fully as in federal courts to a determination of whether a protective order is justified. This Comment examines these considerations and concludes that trial courts must guard against exercising too freely their power to issue protective orders. Such an overly broad exercise of the power relieves movants of their burden to articulate with some specificity the potential harm constituting good cause for restricting parties\u27 and witnesses\u27 First Amendment interests. An understanding of the implications of protective orders should encourage courts to fashion such orders in a way that minimizes the effect on the parties and witnesses without sacrificing the protective purpose of the order