BackgroundThe wound healing process is complex and still poorly understood. Sericin is a silk protein synthesized by silk worms (Bombyx mori). The objective of this study was to evaluate in vivo wound healing effects of a sericin-containing gel formulation in an incision wound model in rats.Material/MethodsTwenty-eight Wistar-Albino rats were divided into 4 groups (n=7). No intervention or treatment was applied to the Intact control group. For other groups, a dorsal skin flap (9×3 cm) was drawn and pulled up with sharp dissection. The Sham operated group received no treatment. The Placebo group received placebo gel without sericin applied to the incision area once a day from day 0 to day 9. The Sericin Group 3 received 1% sericin gel applied to the incision area once a day from day 0 to day 9. Hematoxylin and eosin stain was applied for histological analysis and Mallory-Azan staining was applied for histoimmunochemical analysis of antibodies and iNOS (inducible nitric oxide synthase), and desmin was applied to paraffin sections of skin wound specimens. Parameters of oxidative stress were measured in the wound area.ResultsEpidermal thickness and vascularization were increased, and hair root degeneration, edema, cellular infiltration, collagen discoloration, and necrosis were decreased in Sericin group in comparison to the Placebo group and the Sham operated group. Malonyldialdehyde (MDA) levels were decreased, but superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and glutathione peroxidase (GPx) activities were increased in the sericin group.ConclusionsWe found that sericin had significant positive effects on wound healing and antioxidant activity. Sericin-based formulations can improve healing of incision wounds.

Objective: Early recognition of acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) is crucial in the emergency department. This study was designed to determine the diagnostic value of echocardiography, which was performed by an emergency medicine (EM) physician, to diagnosis ACS. Materials and Methods: This prospective and cross-sectional study was conducted between June 2011 and December 2011. All patients who were admitted with chest pain, to the EM department, and fulfilled the inclusion criteria were enrolled in this study. The focused echocardiography was performed by the EM physician. All echocardiography videos recorded were shown to the cardiologist. The final comments were compared with EM physician’s early findings. Results: Out of 48 patients, four were diagnosed with ACS. Three out of four patients diagnosed with ACS were detected by the EM physician with echocardiography. The EM physician’s prediction value with echocardiography in ACS diagnosis was 75% (95% confidence interval [CI] range 59%–100%), and the negative predictive value was 97% (95% CI range 77,9%-100%). There was no major cardiac event in the patient in whom the EM physician failed to detect a wall motion defect. Conclusion: Echocardiography is a bedside, noninvasive test for diagnosis of ACS. The EM physician who participated in this study was able to recognize ACS with the absence of a segmental wall motion defect, as well as the cardiologist providing the final report.

No abstract

SUMMARYObjectivesTo compare the differences between conventional radiography and digital computerized radiography (CR) in patients presenting to the emergency department.MethodsThe study enrolled consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department who needed chest radiography. Quality score of the radiogram was assessed with visual analogue score (VAS-100 mm), measured in terms of millimeters and recorded at the end of study. Examination time, interpretation time, total time, and cost of radiograms were calculated.ResultsThere were significant differences between conventional radiography and digital CR groups in terms of location unit (Care Unit, Trauma, Resuscitation), hour of presentation, diagnosis group, examination time, interpretation time, and examination quality. Examination times for conventional radiography and digital CR were 45.2 and 34.2 minutes, respectively. Interpretation times for conventional radiography and digital CR were 25.2 and 39.7 minutes, respectively. Mean radiography quality scores for conventional radiography and digital CR were 69.1 mm and 82.0 mm. Digital CR had a 1.05 TL cheaper cost per radiogram compared to conventional radiography.ConclusionsSince interpretation of digital radiograms is performed via terminals inside the emergency department, the patient has to be left in order to interpret the digital radiograms, which prolongs interpretation times. We think that interpretation of digital radiograms with the help of a mobile device would eliminate these difficulties. Although the initial cost of setup of digital CR and PACS service is high at the emergency department, we think that Digital CR is more cost-effective than conventional radiography for emergency departments in the long-term.

No abstract