Search

Adrenocortical tumors (ACTs) are rare endocrine neoplasms in children, with functional ACTs being more prevalent than non-functional types. Clinical manifestations typically include virilization, Cushing's syndrome, and hyperaldosteronism. Surgical intervention is the primary treatment for ACTs, with a significant risk of recurrence in adrenocortical carcinoma even after complete resection. Presentation of Case. This case presentation describes a 3.5-year-old female with generalized hirsutism and clitoral hypertrophy, leading to the discovery of a left adrenal tumor. The child underwent adrenalectomy, revealing a benign adrenal cortical adenoma. Unfortunately, due to loss of follow-up, the child later presented with pulmonary metastases and passed away, preventing further investigation into the source of metastases. Adrenocortical tumors are uncommon in children, with the classification of ACTs into adenomas and carcinomas. To our knowledge, this is the third case of an adrenocortical tumor in a child in Syria. We highlight the challenges in managing pediatric ACTs and emphasize the importance of timely intervention and close monitoring to improve outcomes. Regular follow-up is crucial to detect complications early and optimize treatment strategies, especially considering the unpredictable behavior of these tumors. This case confirms that distinguishing between adrenocortical adenoma and carcinoma can be challenging even histologically. Therefore, it is necessary to follow up after treating each case of adenoma in a child to prevent major complications. • Adrenocortical tumors (ACTs) in children are rare, with functional types more common. • Clinical manifestations include virilization, Cushing's syndrome and hyperaldosteronism. • Surgical intervention is the primary treatment for ACTs. • Challenges exist in distinguishing between adenoma and carcinoma. • Regular follow-up crucial for early detection of complications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of supplementary repeat inferior alveolar nerve block with 2% lidocaine and epinephrine, buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with epinephrine, intraligamentary injection, or intraosseous injection (both with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine) after failed inferior alveolar nerve block (IANB) for securing pain-free treatment in patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular permanent teeth. Methods: This randomized clinical trial included 182 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in mandibular teeth. Patients received 2.0 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine as an IANB injection. Patients who did not experience pain-free treatment received randomly 1 of 4 supplementary techniques, namely repeat lidocaine IANB (rIANB), articaine buccal infiltration (ABI), lidocaine intraligamentary injection (PDL), or lidocaine intraosseous injection (IO). Successful pulp anesthesia was considered to have occurred when no response was obtained to the maximum stimulation (80 reading) of the pulp tester, at which time treatment commenced. Treatment was regarded as being successfully completed when it was associated with no pain. Data were analyzed by χ2 and Fisher exact tests. Results: Of the 182 patients, 122 achieved successful pulpal anesthesia within 10 minutes after initial IANB injection; 82 experienced pain-free treatment. ABI and IO allowed more successful (pain-free) treatment (84% and 68%, respectively) than rIANB or PDL supplementary techniques (32% and 48%, respectively); this was statistically significant (P = .001). Conclusions: IANB injection alone does not always allow pain-free treatment for mandibular teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Supplementary buccal infiltration with 4% articaine with epinephrine and intraosseous injection with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine are more likely to allow pain-free treatment than intraligamentary and repeat IANB injections with 2% lidocaine with epinephrine for patients experiencing irreversible pulpitis in mandibular permanent teeth. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Introduction: To assess the efficacy of buccal infiltrations of 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis. Methods: This randomized double-blind clinical trial included 100 patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis in maxillary teeth. Patients received 2.0 mL 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine or 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in the buccal sulcus adjacent to the tooth with pulpitis. Before and every 2 minutes up to a maximum of 10 minutes after injection, the response of the test tooth was assessed using an electronic pulp tester. Successful pulp anesthesia was considered to have occurred when no response was obtained to the maximum stimulation (80 reading) of the pulp tester during the test period, at which time treatment commenced. Treatment was regarded as being successfully completed when it was associated with no pain. The time to onset of successful pulp anesthesia was recorded for each test tooth. Injection discomfort was recorded on standard 100-mm visual analog scales (VASs). Data were analyzed by the Chi-square and Student t tests. Results: Fifty patients received articaine and 50 received lidocaine. Seventy-three of the 100 patients achieved pulpal anesthesia within 10 minutes of injection: 38 after articaine and 35 after lidocaine (P = .5). The onset of pulpal anesthesia after articaine and lidocaine buccal infiltrations was similar (mean and standard deviations: 4.9 ± 2.7 minutes vs 5.1 ± 2.4 minutes, respectively; t = 0.2; P = .82). Pain-free treatment was completed in 33 patients after articaine and 29 after lidocaine buccal infiltrations (P = .63). Although articaine buccal injection was significantly more comfortable than lidocaine buccal injection (t = 2.3, P = .026), both were associated with mild discomfort on VAS (means ± standard deviation: 10.8 mm ± 11.7 mm vs 17.5 mm ± 17.6 mm, respectively). Conclusions: There was no significant difference in efficacy between 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in achieving anesthesia in maxillary teeth with irreversible pulpitis after buccal infiltration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Clin Microbiol Infect 2010; 16: 780–786 Tunnelled haemodialysis catheters (t-HDC) are prone to colonization by microorganisms, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. A previous study concluded that all culture-negative catheters removed from cancer patients were colonized by microbial biofilms when examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Examination of t-HDC by SEM has not been published before. A total of 44 segments (0.5 cm each) from 11 ex-vivo t-HDC were examined by SEM prior to endoluminal brushing and quantitative culture to determine their colonization status. Endoluminal brushing yielded a positive culture from two catheters. Methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus was grown from one catheter and a Streptococcus species was cultured from the second. SEM examination revealed universal endoluminal coverage by adherent biological material (ABM), which was composed of fibrin, platelets and other host-derived products. However, bacterial cells were visible on the two culture-positive catheters and on two out of nine culture-negative catheters, and were possibly present on one culture-negative catheter. In conclusion, in this study the prevalence of microbial colonization of ex vivo t-HDC was 18% using the endoluminal brushing technique and 36% when examined by SEM. The previously reported universal microbial colonization of central venous catheters is likely to represent coverage by ABM rather than by microbial biofilms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A randomized, controlled trial of 31 healthy volunteers compared 4% articaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine buccal infiltration to buccal plus lingual infiltration of the same dose of drug in achieving pulpal anesthesia of mandibular first molar teeth. Data were compared with efficacy of an inferior alveolar nerve block using 2% lidocaine 1:80,000 epinephrine in a cohort of 27 of the volunteers. Anesthesia was determined using electronic pulp testing. Buccal and buccal plus lingual infiltrations of articaine with epinephrine did not differ in efficacy in obtaining pulpal anesthesia for mandibular permanent first molars (p = 0.17). Efficacy of 4% articaine with epinephrine infiltrations for first molar pulp anesthesia was similar to that of an IANB using lidocaine with epinephrine over a 30-minute study period (96 and 80 episodes of no response to maximal stimulation respectively, p = 0.097). Subjective tooth numbness was more common after IANB than buccal infiltration (p = 0.005). The discomfort of buccal infiltration with articaine was volume dependent (p = 0.017) and similar to that of an IANB. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This randomized double-blind crossover trial investigated the efficacy and discomfort associated with slow (60 seconds) and rapid (15 seconds) inferior alveolar nerve blocks (IANB) using 2.0 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:80,000 epinephrine in securing mandibular first molar, premolar and lateral incisor pulp anesthesia in 38 healthy adult volunteers. Episodes of maximal stimulation (80 μA) without sensation on electronic pulp testing were recorded. Injection discomfort was self-recorded by volunteers on 100 mm visual analogue scales. Data were analyzed by McNemar, Friedman, Wilcoxon Signed Ranks, and paired t tests. Slow IANB produced more episodes of no response to maximal pulp stimulation than rapid IANB in molars (220 episodes versus 159, p < 0.001), premolars (253 episodes versus 216, p = 0.003) and lateral incisors (119 episodes versus 99, p = 0.049). Slow IANB was more comfortable than rapid IANB (p = 0.021). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This randomized crossover double-blind trial compared the efficacy of buccal infiltration with 4% articaine and 2% lidocaine (both with 1:100,000 epinephrine) in securing mandibular first molar pulp anesthesia. Injections were given at least 1 week apart in 31 healthy adult volunteers. Electronic pulp testing was undertaken at baseline and at 2 minute intervals until 30 minutes postinjection. A successful outcome was recorded in the absence of pulp sensation on two consecutive maximal pulp tester stimulations (80 μA). 64.5% of articaine and 38.7% of lidocaine infiltrations were successful (p = 0.008). Articaine infiltration produced significantly more episodes of no response to maximum stimulation in first molars than lidocaine (236 and 129, respectively, p < 0.001). Mandibular buccal infiltration is more effective with 4% articaine with epinephrine compared to 2% lidocaine with epinephrine. Both injections were associated with mild discomfort. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]