Detection of consciousness by electroencephalogram and auditory evoked potentials

Background: A set of electroencephalographic and auditory evoked potential (AEP) parameters should be identified that allows separation of consciousness from unconsciousness (reflected by responsiveness/unresponsiveness to command). Methods: Forty unpremedicated patients received anesthesia with remifentanil and either sevoflurane or propofol. With remifentanil infusion (0.2 g ⅐ kg ؊1 ⅐ mi

Sharp edge from the osteotomy for harvesting the graft, one red line marking the osteotomy of the posterior femoral condyle, the crossing line marking the Blumensaat's line: Patient 17, 2 months postoperatively

"R" marks that this is a right knee.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "The 5.5-year results of MegaOATS – autologous transfer of the posterior femoral condyle: a case-series study"</p><p>http://arthritis-research.com/content/10/3/R68</p><p>Arthritis Research & Therapy 2008;10(3):R68-R68.</p><p>Published online 16 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2483459.</p><p></p

Partial remodelling of the posterior femoral condyle: Patient 17, 82 months postoperatively

One red line marks the prior osteotomy of the posterior femoral condyle according to figure 10, the crossing line marks the Blumensaat's line.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "The 5.5-year results of MegaOATS – autologous transfer of the posterior femoral condyle: a case-series study"</p><p>http://arthritis-research.com/content/10/3/R68</p><p>Arthritis Research & Therapy 2008;10(3):R68-R68.</p><p>Published online 16 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2483459.</p><p></p

Magnetic resonance image after the large osteochondral autogenous transplantation system technique

Magnetic resonance imaging scan of Patient 23, 59 months after the large osteochondral autogenous transplantation system and cancellous bone grafting.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "The 5.5-year results of MegaOATS – autologous transfer of the posterior femoral condyle: a case-series study"</p><p>http://arthritis-research.com/content/10/3/R68</p><p>Arthritis Research & Therapy 2008;10(3):R68-R68.</p><p>Published online 16 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2483459.</p><p></p

Lysholm score for patients with and without osteoarthritis documented presurgery

Box and whisker plot; circles, outliers.<p><b>Copyright information:</b></p><p>Taken from "The 5.5-year results of MegaOATS – autologous transfer of the posterior femoral condyle: a case-series study"</p><p>http://arthritis-research.com/content/10/3/R68</p><p>Arthritis Research & Therapy 2008;10(3):R68-R68.</p><p>Published online 16 Jun 2008</p><p>PMCID:PMC2483459.</p><p></p

Comparison of different radiography systems in an experimental study for detection of forearm fractures and evaluation of the Müller-AO and Frykman classification for distal radius fractures

OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the diagnostic performance of screen-film radiography, storage-phosphor radiography, and a flat-panel detector system in detecting forearm fractures and to classify distal radius fractures according to the Müller-AO and Frykman classifications compared with the true extent, depicted by anatomic preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 71 cadaver arms were fractured in a material testing machine creating different fractures of the radius and ulna as well as of the carpal bones. Radiographs of the complete forearm were evaluated by 3 radiologists, and anatomic preparation was used as standard of reference in a receiver operating curve analysis. RESULTS: The highest diagnostic performance was obtained for the detection of distal radius fractures with area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) values of 0.959 for screen-film radiography, 0.966 for storage-phosphor radiography, and 0.971 for the flat-panel detector system (P > 0.05). Exact classification was slightly better for the Frykman (kappa values of 0.457-0.478) compared with the Müller-AO classification (kappa values of 0.404-0.447), but agreement can be considered as moderate for both classifications. CONCLUSIONS: The 3 imaging systems showed a comparable diagnostic performance in detecting forearm fractures. A high diagnostic performance was demonstrated for distal radius fractures and conventional radiography can be routinely performed for fracture detection. However, compared with anatomic preparation, depiction of the true extent of distal radius fractures was limited and the severity of distal radius fractures tends to be underestimated