11 research outputs found

    Informatik im Sport

    No full text

    Minimal-invasive Stabilisierung bei thorakolumbalen osteoporotischen Frakturen

    Full text link
    Background: Minimally invasive stabilization of thoracolumbar osteoporotic fractures (OF) in neurologically intact patients is well established. Various posterior and anterior surgical techniques are available. The OF classification and OF score are helpful for defining the indications and choice of operative technique. Objective: This article gives an overview of the minimally invasive stabilization techniques, typical complications and outcome. Material and methods: Selective literature search and description of surgical techniques and outcome. Results: Vertebral body augmentation alone can be indicated in painful but stable fractures of types OF 1 and OF 2 and to some extent for type OF 3. Kyphoplasty has proven to be an effective and safe procedure with a favorable clinical outcome. Unstable fractures and kyphotic deformities (types OF 3-5) should be percutaneously stabilized from posterior. The length of the pedicle screw construct depends on the extent of instability and deformity. Bone cement augmentation of the pedicle screws is indicated in severe osteoporosis but increases the complication rate. Restoration of stability of the anterior column can be achieved through additional vertebral body augmentation or rarely by anterior stabilization. Clinical and radiological short and mid-term results of the stabilization techniques are promising; however, the more invasive the surgery, the more complications occur. Conclusion: Minimally invasive stabilization techniques are safe and effective. The specific indications for the individual procedures are guided by the OF classification and the individual clinical situation of the patient

    Blätter für Rechtspflege im Bezirk des Kammergerichts : organ für die Veröffentlichungen der Anwalts-Kammer zu Berlin

    No full text
    Published by Siemenroth & Worms, 1890-94; by Siemenroth & Troschel, 1895-1900; by F. Vahlen, 1901-1934Editors: 1890-1926, L. Wreschner (with Dr. Perl, 1890-1921); 1926-1934, A. HüssenerSome numbers include supplementsMode of access: Internet.1922-27: "Organ für die Veröffentlichungen der Anwalts-Kammer zu Berlin und des Berliner Anwalt-Vereins.

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

    No full text
    In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

    Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

    No full text
    non present
    corecore