The importance of IDH1, ATRX and WT-1 mutations in glioblastoma.

Numerous genetic pathways associated with glioblastoma development have been identified. In this study, we investigated the prognostic significance of IDH1 and ATRX mutations and WT-1 and p53 expression in glioblastomas and that of surgical methods, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. 83 patients with glioblastomas were retrospectively evaluated. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed for IDH1, ATRX and WT-1 expression. Tumour cells were positive for IDH1 in 9.6% of the patients. In 4.8% of the patients, loss of ATRX expression was observed in tumour cells; 86.7% of the patients were WT-1 positive, and 12.05% of the patients were p53 positive. No statistically significant difference was found in the progression-free and overall survival according to IDH1, ATRX, WT-1 and p53 expression. There was a statistically significant difference in the progression-free and overall survival according to the radiotherapy status. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall survival according to the chemotherapy status. There was no statistically significant difference in the progression-free and overall survival according to the surgical method. IDH1 and ATRX mutations, p53 overexpression and WT-1 expression alone did not have a significant effect on the prognosis of patients with glioblastoma; however, radiotherapy and chemotherapy had a positive effect on survival

Retroperitoneal approach via paramedian incision for aortoiliac occlusive disease

Aortoiliac occlusive disease is a frequently encountered occlusive arterial disease. Different surgical approaches to the infrarenal abdominal aorta have been reported. We retrospectively studied the postoperative outcomes of patients who were treated for aortoiliac occlusive disease via a retroperitoneal versus a transperitoneal surgical approach. From January 2005 through May 2009, 47 patients underwent surgery at our hospital for the correction of aortoiliac occlusive disease: 30 via a paramedian incision and retroperitoneal approach, and 17 via a midline sternotomy and transperitoneal approach. In the retroperitoneal group, the surgical procedures involved iliofemoral bypass in 15 patients, aortofemoral bypass in 12, aortoiliac bypass in 2, and aortobifemoral bypass in 1. All 17 patients in the transperitoneal group underwent aortobifemoral bypass. The preoperative characteristics and perioperative data of the patients were analyzed. We believe that the retroperitoneal aortoiliac approach with a paramedian incision may be considered as a surgical option for aortoiliac revascularization. © 2010 by the Texas Heart® Institute, Houston

Linezolid Alone and in Combination with Rifampicin Prevents Experimental Vascular Graft Infection Due to Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis

Background: In this report we describe the in vivo antibacterial activity of linezolid in an experimental graft infection model in rats and compare it with teicoplanin. The objective of this study was also to determine the effects of the interaction of linezolid when it was combined with rifampicin and test this effect against strains of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Materials and methods: Graft infections were established in the subcutaneous tissue of 130 Wistar rats by implantation of Dacron grafts followed by a topical inoculation with 2 × 107 CFU of clinical isolates of MRSA and MRSE. The study included a control group and six groups for each of the staphylococcal strains: an inoculated group that did not receive any antibiotic prophylaxis, two inoculated groups that received intraperitoneal prophylaxis with teicoplanin or linezolid alone, an inoculated group that received rifampicin-soaked grafts, and two inoculated groups that received a combination prophylaxis consisting of intraperitoneal teicoplanin or linezolid and rifampicin-soaked grafts. Results: There was a reduction in the quantitative bacterial graft cultures in all prophylaxis groups when compared with inoculated control groups. There was not a statistically significant difference between linezolid and teicoplanin prophylaxis groups. The best results were obtained by a combination of rifampicin-soaked grafts with linezolid or teicoplanin. Conclusions: We found no evidence to suggest that linezolid differs from teicoplanin regarding effectiveness in the prevention of prosthetic vascular graft infection. Linezolid plus rifampicin and teicoplanin plus rifampicin are demonstrated to be valuable prophylactic regimens. © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved