Renal Atrofinin Nadir Bir Sebebi: Dev Perirenal Kompleks Kist Şeklinde Prezente Olan Subkapsüler Koleksiyon

Scopu

Descriptions of all female stages of the maple mealybug, Phenacoccus Aceris (Hemiptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae), with notes on its biology

The adult female and all wingless nymphal stages of the maple mealybug, Phenacoccus aceris (Signoret), are redescribed and illustrated. The second-instar nymphs of both males and females produce a felt-like cover, which is secreted by numerous dorsal tubular ducts. A key is also provided to separate wingless immature stages of Ph. aceris, based on morphological features. The life cycle and biology of the mealybug on three different plant hosts, i.e., Acer negundo L., A. pseudoplatanus L. (Aceraceae) and Fraxinus excelsior L. (Oleaceae) over two years is presented and compared. Ph. aceris displayed similar developmental rates on all three host plants. Ph. aceris has one generation per year in Ankara, Turkey, and overwinters as third-instar females and male prepupae and pupae in hidden places on the trunk and branches of its host plants. The longest nymphal stage on all host plant species was the third-instar female and the male prepupa and pupa stage. In both sexes there were differences in the periods of occurrence of each developmental stage amongst years that may relate to variation in field temperatures

Core curriculum (CC) of spinal surgery: a step forward in defining our profession

Objective: The aim our study was to establish a core curriculum (CC) for spine surgery incorporating knowledge, skills and attitudes to help define spine surgery as a medical specialty and serve as a guide for specific spine surgery training. Methods: A committee was established to prepare the CC. Five modules were established; Basic Sciences, Spinal Trauma, Degenerative Spine Diseases, Destructive Spine Pathologies and Spinal Deformity. Prepared CC modules were evaluated in a consensus meeting, translated and reevaluated in a second consensus meeting before being accepted as final. Results: In the five modules, 54 subject headings (19 for Basic Sciences, 10 for Spinal Trauma, 4 for Degenerative Spine Diseases, 4 for Destructive Spine Pathologies and 17 for Spinal Deformity) and 165 specific subjects (59 for Basic Sciences, 32 for Spinal Trauma, 10 for Degenerative Spine Diseases, 23 for Destructive Spine Pathologies and 41 for Spinal Deformity) were defined. Learning outcomes and entry and exit criteria were defined for all subjects. Conclusion: This CC may form the basis of spinal surgery training, defining spinal surgery as a medical specialty and help us spine surgeons to develop better defined identities

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms. © 2022 The authors

Variations in management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures as designated by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System

OBJECTIVE Optimal management of A3 and A4 cervical spine fractures, as defined by the AO Spine Subaxial Injury Classification System, remains controversial. The objectives of this study were to determine whether significant management variations exist with respect to 1) fracture location across the upper, middle, and lower subaxial cervical spine and 2) geographic region, experience, or specialty. METHODS A survey was internationally distributed to 272 AO Spine members across six geographic regions (North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East). Participants’ management of A3 and A4 subaxial cervical fractures across cervical regions was assessed in four clinical scenarios. Key characteristics considered in the vignettes included degree of neurological deficit, pain severity, cervical spine stability, presence of comorbidities, and fitness for surgery. Respondents were also directly asked about their preferences for operative management and misalignment acceptance across the subaxial cervical spine. RESULTS In total, 155 (57.0%) participants completed the survey. Pooled analysis demonstrated that surgeons were more likely to offer operative intervention for both A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures located at the cervicothoracic junction compared with fractures at the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. There were no significant variations in management for junctional incomplete (p = 0.116) or complete (p = 0.342) burst fractures between geographic regions. Surgeons with more than 10 years of experience were more likely to operatively manage A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their younger counterparts. Neurosurgeons were more likely to offer surgical stabilization of A3 (p < 0.001) and A4 (p < 0.001) fractures than their orthopedic colleagues. Clinicians from both specialties agreed regarding their preference for fixation of lower junctional A3 (p = 0.866) and A4 (p = 0.368) fractures. Overall, surgical fixation was recommended more often for A4 than A3 fractures in all four scenarios (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS The subaxial cervical spine should not be considered a single unified entity. Both A3 and A4 fracture subtypes were more likely to be surgically managed at the cervicothoracic junction than the upper or middle subaxial cervical regions. The authors also determined that treatment strategies for A3 and A4 subaxial cervical spine fractures varied significantly, with the latter demonstrating a greater likelihood of operative management. These findings should be reflected in future subaxial cervical spine trauma algorithms. © 2022 The authors