The present investigation studied bee venom collecting effect on the behavior of honeybee colonies such as (Hygienic and hoarding honeybees behavior, queen right and queen less). Hygienic behavior, the positive effect of using bee venom collection method on hygienic behavior, that increased this behavior (22%) of honey bee worker cells, Apis mellifera,while hoarding behavior in honey bees, Apis mellifera L., statistical analysis that there was no significant difference between before and after treatment in four colonies. on the other hand, there was an increase in feed conception after treatment, it that seems to the alarming or stimulation of worker honey bee by electrical impulses from bee venom collector so, it increasing the worker hoarding behavior. The queen less had negative effect on venom quantity, and there was positive relation between the number of combs and venom quantity. The relationship between certain characters of honey bee colonies (i.e. stored pollen, stored honey yield and areas, bee population, brood, and foraging activities) and bee venom produced by electrical impulses and quantity of bee venom which collected from colonies variability at different periods of active season showed significant variations in the venom amounts collected at different periods of active season.

No abstract

Introduction: valve replacement remains the definitive treatment of most cases with severe valvular heart disease. Mechanical prosthetic valves remain the main option in younger patients. Objective: evaluation of mechanical prosthetic valve function by comparing the feasibility of leaflet motion assessment by cinefluoroscopy vs. CT. Materials and methods: Leaflet motion was assessed in 30 bileaflet mechanical prostheses (21 mitral and 9 aortic) by cinefluoroscopy and non-contrast CT. Assessment was considered feasible when the ‘in profile’ projection (with the radiographic beam parallel to both the valve ring plane and the tilting axis of discs) could be achieved. Results: Overall feasibility of fluoroscopic assessment was 74% (mitral, 66% vs. aortic, 93%; p=0.071), while feasibility of CT assessment was 100% (p=0.003). Among prostheses with unfeasible fluoroscopic assessment, CT suggested an extreme C-arm angulation to achieve the “in profile” projection (RAO: 76.0±5.8°, LAO: 122.7±32.5°, CRA: 51.4±16.0°, CAU: 57.0±18.2°). Among prostheses with feasible assessment by both techniques, fluoroscopy and CT yielded similar opening and closing angles (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.959 - 0.998) with lower irradiation with CT as compared with fluoroscopy (26.2[21.1-29.3] vs. 289[179-358] mGy, p<0.001). While CT scan took 8.7±0.5 seconds, fluoroscopy required 2.64±1.56 minutes to achieve and record the “in profile” projection.