RESUMEN
Stroke is often viewed as a diagnosis found In the elderly with or without comorbidities, but it is vital to not rule it out in a pediatric patient presenting with signs and symptoms of stroke. Here, we present a case of an 18-month-old boy who arrived at the emergency department with left arm weakness and left-sided seizures a few minutes after a right-sided trivial neck bite that was initially overlooked by the parents until symptoms occurred. Urgent imaging further with a computed tomography scan of the brain revealed a hypodense lesion in the area covering the lateral part of the frontal lobe, insula, and parietal cortex of the right hemisphere. Subsequent CT cervical-cerebral angiogram revealed normal aortic arch, carotid, and vertebral arteries with no dissection, stenosis, or occlusion. However, there was a 4 mm-long occlusion of the M2 segment of the right middle cerebral artery (MCA) suggestive of emboli and subsequent low attenuation of the brain parenchyma in the anterior aspect of the right MCA vascular territory corresponding with the infarction. The objective of this case report is to educate and inform both parents and medical professionals regarding the risk of neurological damage that can occur with minor head and neck trauma that is often overlooked and therefore the importance of ruling it out with necessary imaging modalities.
RESUMEN
Anywhere in the alimentary canal, you can find a gastric duplication cyst, a spherical muscle formation lined by mucosal membrane. It is an uncommon example of a group of congenital intestinal abnormalities. Gastric cysts typically develop on the stomach's greater curvature. A Caucasian 4-year-old boy came in with his family after experiencing colicky central stomach pain for 2 days, along with vomiting for 4 days, decreased oral intake, a temperature of up to 38.5°C and regular bowel movements. A region of the transverse colon with degraded and inflammatory serosa covered in omentum with black necrotic sections was seen during the procedure.
RESUMEN
Background The use of circular frames in correcting lower limb deformity is well-established and has evolved dramatically over the years. Three new frames have been introduced recently, and this study is set to compare them in terms of accuracy and efficiency in correcting a similar long bone deformity. These frames are the Taylor Spatial Frame (TSF; Smith & Nephew, London, United Kingdom), the Truelok Hexapod System (TL-HEX; Orthofix, Lewisville, Texas), and Orthex (OrthoPediatrics, Warsaw, Indiana). Methods This is a biomechanical study comparing the above three types of circular frames to correct similar deformities in Sawbones models. The deformities that are compared were: (1) 30° valgus deformity of the distal femur; (2) 30° varus deformity of the proximal tibia. Each frame was applied to the deformed bone in the standard way that we apply to normal bone. X-rays were taken before and after the deformity correction. The frames' software was used to estimate the deformities. The variations between the software's estimations and the known bone deformities were compared. Residual deformity after initial correction and the number of re-programmings was compared among these three frames. The least residual deformity and re-programming is the favorable outcome. Results All the Sawbones models had a 30° actual coronal angulation. The Orthex software estimated the deformity at around 25.35° (SD 4.6), TSF 25.6° (SD 2), and TL-HEX 29.87° (SD 2.1). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed a significant difference in the findings (P-value 0.014). Accuracy was measured by comparing the residual deformity in angulation in the coronal plane after the first and second correction. The Orthex median residual deformity was 1°, TSF was 2.5°, and TL-HEX was 3° with a range of less than 5° for all of them. The independent samples Kruskal-Wallis test shows that there is no significant difference between the three groups (P=0.549). The frequency of strut changes required throughout the correction was not significant among the three frames using the Fisher exact test (P=0.336). TSF struts are not designed to be readjusted. Conclusion The three frames were comparable in terms of accurate correction of the two deformities, strut changes, and strut adjustments. The TL-HEX frame software was superior to other frames in terms of analyzing the deformity but the difference, although statistically significant clinically, was not.
RESUMEN
AIMS: To quantify the pain experienced by orthodontic patients during the first 10 days of appliance placement, to determine whether chewing gum reduces orthodontic pain compared to placebo, and to examine patients' overall perceptions of the impact of orthodontic pain. METHODS: Patients bonded with fixed appliances were randomly assigned to one of two groups (gum group [GG] or placebo group [PG]) and then followed for 10 days. The main outcome was a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, and the secondary outcomes included patients' subjective assessments of overall pain level, the impact of pain on hygiene habits and treatment decision, and the frequency of analgesics consumption. Eighty kits (40 for GG and 40 for PG) were pre-randomized and concealed before patient enrollment using a computer-generated random sequence. Operators and patients were blinded. Data were analyzed using generalized linear models and Mann-Whitney U, chi-square, and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were allocated to intervention groups; 37 participated and completed diaries (20 in GG and 17 in PG). No statistically significant differences were detected between the GG and PG groups in any tested variable. Pain negatively affected some patients' oral hygiene practices. A mismatch existed between patient expectations and actual pain experiences. Female patients used analgesics more frequently than male patients (P = .046). CONCLUSION: Chewing gum three times per day does not seem to significantly reduce orthodontic pain compared to placebo. Orthodontists should manage their patients' pain expectations.
