Search

Results indicate multiple biosynthetic pathways for trehalose production in mycobacteria namely glucose 6-phosphate and UDP-glucose pathway, glycogen-like alpha (1-4)linked glucose polymer pathway, and maltose pathway.

Research was conducted to determine the action of fosfomycin on MurA enzyme and the effect of amino acid substitution on its activity. Results show that fosfomycin inhibits the enzyme and the inhibitory effect is altered when cysteine residue is replaced with aspartate-117.

Background: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients younger than 50 years poses significant challenges including postoperative limitations of activity and higher failure rates. Sub-par outcomes of hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) in registries remain controversial due to multiple confounders. Favourable HRA results in some studies are often regarded as irreproducible. The aim of this study is to analyse HRA outcomes in a large international cohort. Patients and methods: We compiled a database of 11,382 HRA patients ⩽50 years from an international group of 27 experienced HRA centres from 13 countries. 18 different metal-on-metal (MoM) HRA designs were included with a mean follow-up of 7.6 years. Outcomes were implant survivorship, revision rates, causes for revision, clinical scores and metal ion levels. Outcomes were compared between genders, sizes, implant types and pre-operative diagnoses. Results: Overall cumulative Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 88.9% at 22 years (95% CI: 88.3–89.5%). 2 HRA designs (DePuy Articular Surface Replacement (ASR), and Corin Cormet Hip Resurfacing System (CORMET)) led to inferior results while all others yielded similar survivorships. Excluding ASR and CORMET, implant survivorship in 11,063 cases was 95% at 10 years and 90% at 22 years. In men, implant survivorship was excellent: 99% at 10 years and 92.5% at 21 years. In females, implant survivorship was 90% at 10 years and 81.3% at 22 years. The overall revision rate was 3.6% with most common reasons for revision being implant loosening and adverse local tissue reactions. The best survivorship was found in patients with osteoarthritis (95% CI, 92.1–93.3% at 22 years), the poorest was among dysplastic hips (78.3%; 95% CI, 76.5–80.1% at 20 years, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Comparable revision rates demonstrated here may mitigate some concerns for safety and longevity of MoM HRA implants. Higher demands for activity and functionality in younger patients make HRA a potential alternative to THA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Mycobacterium avium sequevar Mav-B is developed in the AIDS patients and children with lymphadenitis, but infections due to M. intracellulare of several Min and MAC sequevars are caused in elderly pulmonary disease patients. Pathogenic conditions are ensured in humans and in the hosts by the Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare (MAI) complex. The MAI complex strains are detected by the internal transcribed spacer sequevar typing.

Introduction: Hip resurfacing (HRA) requires a new standardised radiographic evaluation protocol. Evaluation of acetabular components is similar to total hip arthroplasty (THA) but femoral components require different criteria. This study evaluates the efficacy of a new femoral zonal system for radiographic HRA assessment in identifying clinical problems. Methods: A new proximal femoral zonal system divides implant-cement-bone interfaces at head and neck into 7 DeSmet zones. 611 in situ and 100 revised HRA were assessed for component positioning, borderline findings (reactive lines, cortical thickening, cancellous condensation) or sinister findings (lucent lines, bone resorption, osteolysis). Findings were correlated with gender, size, implant survival, clinical scores, metal ions, and adverse soft tissue reactions (ALTR). Results: Radiological changes were found in 265 hips (37.3%), 154 sinister (21.7%) and 111 borderline (15.6%). 84% of revisions had sinister findings versus 11.4% of in situ HRA (p < 0.001). The mean number of abnormal acetabular and femoral zones was 3.3 in revised compared to 0.6 in situ HRA (p < 0.001). Sinister findings were associated with female gender, lower clinical scores, smaller sizes or ASR design (all: p < 0.001). Metal ions were higher with sinister (p < 0.001) and borderline (p < 0.01) findings compared to normal radiographs. Pathological findings in ⩾4 zones had a sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 94.2% (AUC = 0.898) in detecting hips with ALTR (odds ratio = 49). Conclusion: In order to accurately evaluate progressive radiographic changes in HRA, specific zones have been established around the femoral component. There was a high correlation between radiographic findings and outcome measures. 84% of problematic hips and 90.4% of proven ALTR had sinister changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports the consensus of an international faculty of expert metal-on-metal (MoM) hip resurfacing surgeons, with a combined experience of over 40,000 cases, on the current status of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Indications, design and metallurgy issues, release of metal ions and adverse soft tissue reactions to particles, management of problematic cases and revisions, as well as required experience and training are covered. The overall consensus is that MoM hip resurfacing should not be banned and should be viewed separately from MoM total hip arthroplasty (THA) with a large diameter head because of the different design and wear behaviour related to the taper/trunnion connection. The use of hip resurfacing has decreased worldwide but specialist centres continue to advocate hip resurfacing in young and active male patients. Regarding age the general recommendation is to avoid hip resurfacing in men older than 65 and in women older than 55, depending on the patient activity and bone quality. Female gender is considered a relative contraindication. Most surgeons would not implant a MoM hip in women who would still like a child. Regardless of gender, there is a consensus not to perform hip resurfacing in case of a femoral head size smaller than 46 mm and in patients with renal insufficiency or with a known metal allergy. Regarding follow-up of hip resurfacing and detection of adverse local tissue reactions, metal ion measurements, MRI and ultrasound are advocated depending on the local expertise. The consensus is that hip resurfacing should be limited to high volume hip surgeons, who are experienced in hip resurfacing or trained to perform hip resurfacing in a specialist centre. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]