Apparent Diffusion Coefficient of Normal Abdominal Organs and Bone Marrow From Whole-Body DWI at 1.5 T: The Effect of Sex and Age.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to define the range of apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) from whole-body DWI in normal abdominal organs and bone marrow, to identify ADC differences between sexes and changes occurring with age, and to evaluate the effect of the fat fraction (FF) on the ADC of normal liver parenchyma and bone marrow. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one healthy volunteers (mean age = 38 years; age range = 23-68 years) underwent whole-body DWI using single-shot echo-planar imaging (b = 0, 150, 400, 750, and 1000 s/mm(2)). A two-point Dixon technique was used to evaluate the FF. Perfusion-sensitive ADCs, which we refer to as "ADCALL," and perfusion-insensitive ADCs, which we refer to as "ADCHIGH," of the liver and renal parenchyma, spleen, pancreatic tail, and red and yellow bone marrow were calculated. The relationships between ADC and sex, age, and FF were examined. RESULTS: ADCALL and ADCHIGH were significantly higher in female volunteers for the pancreatic tail (p = 0.046 and 0.008, respectively), red bone marrow (p = 0.029 and 0.001), and yellow bone marrow (p < 0.001 for both) but with considerable overlap. There were significant negative correlations between ADCALL and ADCHIGH and age in the liver parenchyma (p = 0.008 and 0.01, respectively) and in the yellow bone marrow (p = 0.013 and 0.039) for all subjects. ADCALL and ADCHIGH were also negatively correlated with FF in the liver parenchyma (p = 0.006 and 0.008, respectively) and in yellow bone marrow (p < 0.001 and p = 0.001) in all subjects. CONCLUSION: The ADCs of normal liver parenchyma and bone marrow change significantly with age. The ADCs of bone marrow in women are significantly higher than those of men and correlate strongly with FF. These effects may have an impact on image interpretation when using whole-body DWI to assess disease burden and treatment response.

Lack of effects of guanfacine on executive and memory functions in healthy male volunteers.

RATIONALE: Guanfacine is an alpha2-adrenergic receptor agonist that has been shown to have beneficial effects on working memory and attentional functions in monkeys and in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to further investigate the cognitive-enhancing properties of guanfacine using an established battery of tasks measuring executive and memory functions. METHODS: Sixty healthy male volunteers were randomised into three groups. Cognitive testing was performed from +2 to +4 h after double-blind administration of a single oral dose of 1 or 2 mg of guanfacine or placebo. RESULTS: Systolic blood pressure was significantly reduced by both doses of guanfacine at the end of the testing session. There were no statistically significant effects on any of the cognitive measures. Two trend effects were observed with poorer performance on digit span backward and slower 'Go' reaction times after guanfacine. CONCLUSION: This study found no improvement of prefrontal memory or executive functions after guanfacine. Negative effects on blood pressure and trend effects on digit span backward and go reaction time indicate a mild sedative effect of guanfacine at these doses, possibly via mechanisms of autoreceptor down-regulation.

Reading the small print - labelling recommendations for orthopaedic implants.

INTRODUCTION: There exist, currently, no clear guidelines regarding standards for surgical implant labelling. Dimensions of the laminar flow canopies in orthopaedic use fixes the distance at which implant labels can be read. Mistakes when reading the label on an implant box can pose health risks for patients, and financial consequences for medical institutions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Using scientifically validated tools such as the Snellen Chart Formula, a theoretical minimum standard for text on implant labels was reached. This theoretical standard was then tested under real operating conditions. After discovering a minimum practical standard for implant labels, the authors then audited current labels in use on a wide range of orthopaedic implant packages. Furthermore, other non-text-related labelling problems were also noted. RESULTS: There is a definite minimum standard which should be observed when implant labels are manufactured. Implants in current use bear labels on the packaging that are of an insufficient standard to ensure patient safety in theatre. CONCLUSIONS: The authors have established text parameters that will increase the legibility of implant labels. In the interests of improving risk management in theatre, therefore, the authors propose a standard for orthopaedic implant labelling, and believe this will provide a useful foundation for further discussion between the orthopaedic community and implant manufacturers.