No abstract

No abstract

Počet obyvateľov s polyfarmáciou (pravidelné užívanie ≥ 5 liekov) sa zvýšil takmer o štvrtinu (z 70,2 % na 87,3 %) a počet seniorov s excesívnou polyfarmáciou (pravidelné užívanie ≥ 10 liekov) vzrástol 4,6 násobne (z 9,3 % na 43,5 %). Záver: Naša práca potvrdila, že v priebehu 18 rokov sa u seniorov v inštitúciách sociálneho typu zvýšil počet užívaných liekov. Poukazuje aj na trend zvyšovania polyfarmácie a excesívnej polyfarmácie u seniorov, osobitne vo veku 75+ rokov a u žien.

No abstract

Introduction: Electrode length selection based on case-related cochlear parameters is becoming a standard pre-operative step for cochlear implantation. The manual measurement of the parameters is often time-consuming and may lead to inconsistencies. Our work aimed to evaluate a novel, automatic measurement method. Materials and Methods: A retrospective evaluation of pre-operative HRCT images of 109 ears (56 patients) was conducted, using a development version of the OTOPLAN® software. Inter-rater (intraclass) reliability and execution time were assessed for manual (surgeons R1 and R2) vs. automatic (AUTO) results. The analysis included A-Value (Diameter), B-Value (Width), H-Value (Height), and CDLOC-length (Cochlear Duct Length at Organ of Corti/Basilar membrane). Results: The measurement time was reduced from approximately 7 min ± 2 (min) (manual) to 1 min (AUTO). Cochlear parameters in mm (mean ± SD) for R1, R2 and AUTO, respectively, were A-value: 9.00 ± 0.40, 8.98 ± 0.40 and 9.16 ± 0.36; B-value: 6.81 ± 0.34, 6.71 ± 0.35 and 6.70 ± 0.40; H-value: 3.98 ± 0.25, 3.85 ± 0.25 and 3.76 ± 0.22; and the mean CDLoc-length: 35.64 ± 1.70, 35.20 ± 1.71 and 35.47 ± 1.87. AUTO CDLOC measurements were not significantly different compared to R1 and R2 (H0: Rx CDLOC = AUTO CDLOC: p = 0.831, p = 0.242, respectively), and the calculated intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for CDLOC was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.932) for R1 vs. AUTO; 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.932) for R2 vs. AUTO; and 0.893 (95% CI: 0.809, 0.935) for R1 vs. R2. Conclusions: We observed excellent inter-rater reliability, a high agreement of outcomes, and reduced execution time using the AUTO method.