• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sun, 23.06.24

Search results


September 2015
Sigal Tal MD, Michael Abrahamy MD, Paul Gottlieb MD, Hillel Maresky MD and Anna Ben Ely MD

Background: The practice of administering intravenous contrast to children varies by institution depending on their routine. 

Objectives: To assess the necessity of routine contrast administration in brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of pediatric outpatients referred for chronic headache workups. 

Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of consecutive pediatric brain MRI examinations performed during January and February 2014 in 30 pediatric outpatients referred for evaluation of chronic headache. Independent review was performed by two board-certified neuroradiologists. The raters reviewed each MRI first as a non-contrast examination (without seeing the post-contrast images) and then with post-contrast images. 

Results: No abnormalities were found in six patients. One patient had an indeterminate finding of a tubular cerebellar lesion requiring follow-up. In the remaining patients (n=23), the findings were subclinical and included: mucosal thickening in the paranasal sinuses in 9 patients, cystic changes of the pineal gland in 8 (size 2–9 mm), small developmental venous anomalies in 6, non-specific FLAIR hyperintensities in 4, opacification of the mastoids in 2, and telangiectasia in 1 patient. The subclinical cases that were missed on pre-contrast images were: one small developmental venous anomaly, one telangiectasia and one small pineal cyst, none of which hold clinical significance. All kappa inter-rater and intra-rater agreement scores resulted in values above 0.75, excellent agreement according to Fleiss guidelines.

Conclusions: There seems to be little reason to medically justify large-scale use of routine IV contrast administration to evaluate a brain MRI of pediatric patients referred for chronic headache. 

 

October 2011
D.S. Shouval, Z. Samra, I. Shalit, G. Livni, E. Bilvasky, O. Ofir, R. Gadba and J. Amir

Background: Staphylococcus aureus infection is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Clindamycin is widely used in the treatment of staphylococcal infections; however, it is our impression that in the last few years, inducible clindamycin resistance (ICR) has become more prevalent.

Objective: To assess the prevalence of ICR[1] in methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infections among pediatric patients in Israel.

Methods: We reviewed the files of children diagnosed with MSSA[2] infections during the period January 2006 to June 2007 for full antibiogram (including the D-test for ICR), phage typing and randomly amplified polymorphic DNA.

Results: Altogether, 240 MSSA isolates were recovered, mainly from wounds and abscesses. ICR was detected in 62 of 68 erythromycin-resistant/clindamycin-sensitive strains (91%); the ICR rate for the total number of isolates was 26% (62/240). Phage type analysis demonstrated that 38 of 61 ICR isolates

(62%) were sensitive to group 2, compared to 42 of 172 isolates (24%) that did not express ICR (P < 0.01). On randomly amplified polymorphic DNA, phage type 2 isolates expressing ICR belonged to the same clone, which was different from ICR isolates sensitive to other phages and from isolates not expressing ICR.

Conclusions: Inducible clindamycin resistance is common among methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus in Israeli children. The D-test should be performed routinely in all isolates of MSSA.






[1] ICR = inducible clindamycin resistance



[2] MSSA = methicillin-sensitive Staphylococcus aureus



 
May 2006
P. Saenger

The plight and fate of German Jewish pediatricians during the Nazi period in Europe has not received much attention, yet the narratives of the victims still resonate today and they deserve to be remembered. The stories of two women serve as examples of the fateful turns taken by the lives of many German Jewish pediatricians between 1933 and 1945. The two women, Dr. Luci Adelsberger and Dr. Lilli Jahn, illustrate both the ordeals endured, and disparate ways the Nazi policies ultimately spared or ended lives.

July 2003
C. Hartman, Z. Hochberg and R. Shamir
April 2001
Ofer N. Gorfit, MD and Khalil Abu-Dalu, MD

Background: Despite years of research and clinical experience with acute appendicitis, the rate of complications in the pediatric age group continues to be high.

Objective: To characterize the profile of the child with appendicitis complicared by perforation or intraabdominal abscess.

Methods: Between 1 January 1985 and 31 December 1997 in our department, 581 children under the age of 14 years were clinically diagnosed as suffering from "acute appendici­tis". The final diagnoses were: white appendix in 28 cases (4.8%), acute non-complicated appendicitis in 472 (81%), and complicated appendicitis in 81 (13.9%), including 51 cases of free perforation (8.7%) and 30 cases of intraabdominal abscess (5.2%). We retrospectively reviewed the charts of all children with complicated appendicitis and those of 70 randomly selected children with non-complicated appendicitis, and compared patient age, gender, weight percentile, past medical history, and course of the illness.

Results: The children with complicated appendicitis were significantly younger (R~4.8*10~7), they had higher oral and rectal temperatures (P=7.9*10-8), higher platelet count (P=0.0008) and lower hemoglobin level (P=0.004). No difference was found in white blood count (P=0.41). Total delay from symptom onset to surgery was 33 hours (SD 23) in the non-complicated group, 60 hours (SD 38) in the perforated appendicitis group, and 176 hours (SD 107) in the intra­abdominal abscess group (P=4.6*10-8). No difference in intra­hospital delay was found.

Conclusions: Children with complicated appendicitis are characterized by younger age, longer delay from symptom onset to correct diagnosis, and typical laboratory findings. Delays in diagnosis can be avoided by first considering the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the differential diagnosis when examining any child with abdominal pain.

August 2000
Vladimir Gavrilov MD, Matitiahu Lifshitz MD, Jacob Levy MD and Rafael Gorodischer MD

Background: Many medications used for children have not undergone evaluation to assure acceptable standards for optimal dose, safety and efficacy. As a result, the majority of children admitted to hospital wards receive medications outside the terms of their license (off-label) or medications that are not specifically licensed for use in children (unlicensed). The extent of unlicensed and off-label medication use in ambulatory children is unknown.

Objective: To determine the extent of unlicensed and off-label medication use in a general pediatrics ambulatory hospital unit in Israel.

Patients and Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the medical records of 132 outpatient children treated in the General Pediatrics Ambulatory Unit of the Soroka Medical Center, Beer Sheva, in November–December 1998.

Results: The children’s ages ranged from 1 month to 18 years (mean ± SD 50±58 months). Of the 222 prescriptions given to these children, one-third were unlicensed (8%) or unlabeled (26%). Different dose and age were the most common categories of off-label medication use. All 18 cases of unlicensed use were due to modifica-tion of licensed drugs (tablets were crushed to prepare suspensions). Altogether, 42% of children received medicines that were off-label and/or unlicensed.

Conclusions: More off-label than unlicensed medications were used. Further investigations are required to establish the extent of unproved drug use in both hospitalized and ambulatory pediatric patients in Israel. Recommendations recently issued by the Ministry of Health’s National Council for Child Health and Pediatrics constitute a first step in the Israeli contribution to the international effort demanding testing of medications for children.

June 2000
Jacob Urkin MD, Sheila S. Warshawsky MSc and Joseph Press MD

Background: In Israel the pediatric emergency room functions as an urgent primary care clinic in addition to dealing with life-threatening situations. Due to health insurance stipulations, most patients come to the PER with a referral from the community clinic. The relationship between the referring physician’s expectations and the subsequent management of the referred patient in the PER is not well defined.

Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between the expectations of the primary care physician and the management of referred patients in the PER, assess the type of information provided by the referring physician, and examine the effect of additional information obtained from the referring physician on patient management in the PER.

Methods: We reviewed the records of patients presenting at the PER with referrals from primary care physicians as well as additional information obtained by telephone interviews with the referring physicians.     

Results: The expectations of the referring physicians were not fully documented in the referral form. The PER responded to the patient as if the PER was the initial contact. There was no significant difference in the response of PER physicians with or without additional information from the referring physicians.

Conclusions: The PER acts as an independent unit with no obligation to satisfy the expectations of the referring physicians. The relationship between the PER and the referring physicians needs to be clarified. Guidelines and structured PER referral forms should be implemented in all primary care clinics to improve patient management and communication between health providers. 

__________________________________

 

PER= Pediatric Emergency Room

November 1999
Gideon Paret MD, Tamar Ziv MD, Arie Augarten MD, Asher Barzilai MD, Ron Ben-Abraham MD, Amir Vardi MD, Yossi Manisterski MD and Zohar Barzilay MD, FCCM

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a well-recognized condition resulting in high permeability pulmonary edema associated with a high morbidity.

Objectives: To examine a 10 year experience of predisposing factors, describe the clinical course, and assess predictors of mortality in children with this syndrome.

Methods: The medical records of all admissions to the pediatric intensive care unit over a 10 year period were evaluated to identify children with ARDS1. Patients were considered to have ARDS if they met all of the following criteria: acute onset of diffuse bilateral pulmonary infiltrates of non-cardiac origin and severe hypoxemia defined by <200 partial pressure of oxygen during ³6 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure for a minimum of 24 hours. The medical records were reviewed for demographic, clinical, and physiologic information including PaO22 /forced expiratory O2, alveolar–arterial O2 difference, and ventilation index.

Results: We identified 39 children with the adult respiratory distress syndrome. Mean age was 7.4 years (range 50 days to 16 years) and the male:female ratio was 24:15. Predisposing insults included sepsis, pneumonias, malignancy, major trauma, shock, aspiration, near drowning, burns, and envenomation. The mortality rate was 61.5%. Predictors of death included the PaO2/FIO2, ventilation index and A-aDO23 on the second day after diagnosis. Non-survivors had significantly lower PaO2/FIO2 (116±12 vs. 175±8.3, P<0.001), and higher A-aDO2 (368±28.9 vs. 228.0±15.5, P<0.001) and ventilation index (43.3±2.9 vs. 53.1±18.0, P<0.001) than survivors.

Conclusions: Local mortality outcome for ARDS is comparable to those in tertiary referral institutions in the United States and Western Europe. The PaO2/FIO2, A-aDO2 and ventilation index are valuable for predicting outcome in ARDS by the second day of conventional therapy. The development of a local risk profile may allow early application of innovative therapies in this population. 

___________________________________ 

1ARDS = acute respiratory distress syndrome

2 PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen

3A-aDO2 = alveolar–arterial O2 difference

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel