• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Wed, 24.04.24

Search results


February 2013
O. Halshtok Neiman, S. Sadetzki, A. Chetrit, S. Raskin, G. Yaniv and C. Hoffmann
 Background: MRI differentiation between metastases and high grade gliomas is a challenging task. Contrast enhancement and size of edema do not provide clear-cut differentiators. The differences in the properties of the peritumoral edema between these tumor types may be exploited to distinguish between them, using MRI perfusion sequences, which are capable of imaging edema in the clinical setting and may be a reliable method to make this differentiation.

Objectives: To assess the ability of perfusion-weighted imaging to differentiate between high grade gliomas and brain metastases.

Methods: During 5 months, 21 patients (age 40–85, median age 61, 16 males and 5 females) with either glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) or metastasis (pathology proven), underwent MRI for assessment of the tumor prior to surgery. Most of the scans were done at 3 Tesla. The scans included perfusion-weighted imaging sequences. Perfusion in the tumor, in the peritumoral edema and in normal tissue were assessed using Functool® software. The ratios of tumor perfusion and peritumoral edema perfusion to normal tissue perfusion were calculated and compared.

Results: Bleeding artifact precluded perfusion assessment in four patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the tumor perfusion ratios of high grade gliomas and those of metastases. The edema perfusion ratios were higher in GBM than in metastases (P = 0.007).

Conclusions: Perfusion-weighted imaging of peritumoral edema can help to differentiate between GBM and metastases.

August 2003
Y. Waisman, N. Siegal, M. Chemo, G. Siegal, L. Amir, Y. Blachar and M. Mimouni

Background: Understanding discharge instructions is crucial to optimal healing but may be compromised in the hectic environment of the emergency department.

Objectives: To determine parents’ understanding of ED[1] discharge instructions and factors that may affect it.

Methods: A convenience sample of parents of children discharged home from the ED of an urban tertiary care pediatric facility (n=287) and a suburban level II general hospital (n=195) completed a 13-item questionnaire covering demographics, level of anxiety, and quality of physician’s explanation. Parents also described their child’s diagnosis and treatment instructions and indicated preferred auxiliary methods of delivery of information. Data were analyzed using the BMPD statistical package.

Results: Full understanding was found in 72% and 78% of the parents at the respective centers for the diagnosis, and in 82% and 87% for the treatment instructions (P  = NS between centers). There was no statistical correlation between level of understanding and parental age, gender, education, level of anxiety before or after the ED visit, or time of day. The most contributory factor to lack of understanding was staff use of medical terminology. Parents suggested further explanations by a special discharge nurse and written information as auxiliary methods.

Conclusions: Overall, parental understanding of ED discharge instructions is good. However, there remains a considerable number (about 20%) who fail to fully comprehend the diagnosis or treatment directives. This subset might benefit from the use of lay terminology by the staff, institution of a special discharge nurse, or use of diagnosis-specific information sheets.






[1] ED = emergency department


September 2002
Yaacov Ori, MD, Haim Neuman, MD, Avry Chagnac, MD, Annette Siegal, MD, Ana Tobar, MD, Maxim Itkin, MD, Uzi Gafter, MD, PhD and Asher Korzets, MB, BS

Background: The use of an automated biopsy system for renal biopsy has recently gained popularity, but its safety in single functioning kidneys is unclear.

Objective: To report our experience with the automated system for closed renal biopsy during a 5 year period.

Methods: Eighty-five patients underwent percutaneous native renal biopsy with the automated biopsy gun (16G needle) under real-time ultrasound. They were chronologically divided into two groups: 41 patients (group A), using an older ultrasound machine; and 44 patients (group B), using a newer ultrasound machine. Nine patients biopsied with a manual 14G Tru-cut needle served as the control (group C).

Results: The number of "attempted" passes at the kidney was 4.0 ± 0.1 in group B, 4.7 ± 0.3 in group A (P < 0.05 vs. group B), and 5.8 ± 0.5 in group C (P < 0.01 vs. group B). The number of successful passes did not differ (3.3 ± 0.1, 3.3 ± 0.1, 3.1 ± 0.2). The ratio of "attempted/successful" was 1.28 ± 0.07 in group B, 1.95 ± 0.38 in A, and 1.90 ± 0.21 in C (P < 0.01 vs. B). The number of glomeruli obtained was similar in the three groups. Adequate tissue was obtained in 95%, 98%, and 100%, respectively. Hemoglobin decreased by 4.3 ± 1.1% in group B, 6.9 ± 1.3% in group A, and 11.3 ± 1.8% in group C (P < 0.05 vs. B). Perinephric/subcapsular hematoma occurred in 5 patients (11.4%) in group A (2 taking aspirin), in 2 patients (4.9%) in group B, and in none in group C. The necessity for blood transfusion post-biopsy was similar in all groups. Four of five patients with single functioning kidneys (one in group A and four in group B) had uneventful biopsies, and adequate tissue was obtained in three.

Conclusions: The use of the automated biopsy gun is effective, safe and has a low rate of major complications. It may be used safely in single functioning kidneys.

April 2002
Gil Siegal, MD, Jacob Braun, MD, Avraham Kuten, MD, Tzahala Tzuk-Shina, MD, Louise M. Lev, MD, Ines Misselevitch, MD and Michal Luntz, MD
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