ESPRAS Survey on Continuing Education in Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery in Europe

Background Specialty training in plastic, reconstructive and aesthetic surgery is a prerequisite for safe and effective provision of care. The aim of this study was to assess and portray similarities and differences in the continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe. Material and Methods A detailed questionnaire was designed and distributed utilizing an online survey administration software. Questions addressed core items regarding continuing education and specialization in plastic surgery in Europe. Participants were addressed directly via the European Leadership Forum (ELF) of the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS). All participants had detailed knowledge of the organization and management of plastic surgical training in their respective country. Results The survey was completed by 29 participants from 23 European countries. During specialization, plastic surgeons in Europe are trained in advanced tissue transfer and repair and aesthetic principles in all parts of the human body and within several subspecialties. Moreover, rotations in intensive as well as emergency care are compulsory in most European countries. Board certification is only provided for surgeons who have had multiple years of training regulated by a national board, who provide evidence of individually performed operative procedures in several anatomical regions and subspecialties, and who pass a final oral and/or written examination. Conclusion Board certified plastic surgeons meet the highest degree of qualification, are trained in all parts of the body and in the management of complications. The standard of continuing education and qualification of European plastic surgeons is high, providing an excellent level of plastic surgical care throughout Europe

Paleontology of leaf beetles

`The rate of evolution in any large group is not uniform; there are periods of relatise stability, and periods of comparatively rapid change.' Cockerell and LeVeque, 1931 To Yenli Ych, my beloved wife, a most wonderful person! The fossil record of the Chrysomelidae can be tentatively traced back to the late Paleozoic to early Mesozoic Triassic. Mesozoic records at least 9 subfamilies, 19 genera, and 35 species, are represented by the Sagrinae, the exclusively Mesozoic Proto scelinae, Clytrinae, Cryptocephalinae, Eumolpinae, Chrysomelinae. Galerucinac, Alticinae, and Cassidinae. Cenozoic records at least 12 subfamilies- 63 % of the extant- 12! genera, and 325 species, include the same extant subfamilies as well as the Donaciinae, Zeugophorinae, Criocerinae, and Hispinae and can be frequently identified to genus, especially if preserved in amber. Quaternary records are often identified to extant species. tn total, at least t3! genera about 4 % of total extant, and 357 species < 1 % have been reported. At least, 24 genera <1 % of the extant seem to be extinct. Although reliable biological information associated with the fossil chrysomelids is very scarce, it seems that most of the modern host-plant associations were established, at least, in the late Mesozoic to early Cenozoic. As a whole, stasis seems to be the general rule of the chrysomelid fossil record. Together with other faunal elements, chrysomelids, especially donaciines, have been used as biogeographic and paleoclimatological indicators in the Holocene. I

Sur un Crâne néolithique pathologique

G. de Mortillet Suzanne. Sur un Crâne néolithique pathologique. In: Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France, tome 39, n°3-4, 1942. pp. 90-92

L'Homme préhistorique; revue ... illustrée d'archéologie et d'anthropologie prehistoriques...

Editors: 1903-1912, A. Chevin, A. de Mortillet; 1913-1914, M. Baudouin; 1926-1928, A. de Mortillet, G. Courty.Vols. 11-12 called also "2. sér., v. 1-2".Publication suspended, 1915-1925, inclusive.Mode of access: Internet

An experimental approach to understanding the ‘eolithic’ problem: cultural cognition and the perception of plausibly anthropic artifacts

The Eolithic controversy dominated debate about the earliest human tools between approximately 1880 and 1930, and raised acutely the difficulties of identifying stone that had been selected and modified for human or protohuman use. Similar issues in distinguishing artifacts from geofacts have persisted, making this more than a matter of arcane historical interest. This paper examines the thinking behind the claims made by British “eolithophiles” by using approaches developed in the study of cultural cognition. We report on a series of experiments conducted on non-artifactual material derived from the classic Kentish eolith-bearing deposits, and on specimens labeled “eoliths” in the Maidstone Museum.We demonstrate how the sorting behavior of research subjects provides evidence of “form selection” and perceptual pattern-recognition influenced by cultural experience, and how engaging interactively with the material indicates the importance of bodily actions in “thinking through” the functionality of objects