Search

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To evaluate the effect of different frequency transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation treated on the postoperative cognitive function of patients undergoing gynecological laparoscopy. Methods: Eighty patients who were scheduled for elective gynecological laparoscopic surgery were selected and divided into four groups named Group N and Group E1-E3. Group N enrolled 20 people who were treated without transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, and the other sixty patients treated with different frequency transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation in Neiguan, Baihui and Fengchi,referred as group El-E3. And the frequency of stimulation in E1 was 2Hz, E2 was 100Hz and E3 was 2/100Hz. And then the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) were compared between the four groups. Results: Grading score as well as the incidence rate of POCD in group N were significantly higher than those of group E1-E3 (P＜0.05), while no significant difference was found between group El, E2 and E3 (P＞0.05). Conclusion: Transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation could reduce the incidence of POCD in gynecological laparoscopic patients. But the frequency of stimulation might have no siginicant difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Progress in Modern Biomedicine is the property of Publishing House of Progress in Modern Biomedicine and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Objective: To study the significance of internal fixations of intertrochanteric hip fractures in elder patients by comparing the effects of various kinds of internal fixations. Methods: One hundred and twelve senile patients with intertrochanteric hip fractures were followed up. They were treated with the four kinds of operations respectively: dynamic hip screw(DHS), locking proximal femur plate(LPFP), proximal femoral nail antirotation(PFNA)and femoral head replacement(FHR). The data of each group were collected for statistical analysis on the following aspects: operative time, mean intraoperative blood loss, postoperative complications, and the Harris hip function scores. Results: The operative time, blood loss and postoperative complication in PFNA group was significantly less than the other groups(P<0.05). And the results of the DHS group, the LPFP group and the FHR group were similar(P>0.05). The Harris hip score of PFNA and FHR group were superior to the other group(P<0.05). But, the Harris hip score of PFNA and FHR group was similar(P>0.05). Conclusions: 4 kinds of internal fixations have their advantages and disadvantages, so the reasonable kind of internal fixations should be chosen to treat different type of intertrochanteric fractures in the senile patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]