OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usage of duplex power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) for the differentiation of benign and malignant thyroid nodules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively examined 77 thyroid nodules in 60 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB). Each nodule was described according to size, inner structure, borders, parenchymal echogenicity, peripheral halo formation, and the presence of calcification (B-mode ultrasound findings). Vascularity as determined by PDUS imaging was defined as non-vascular, peripheral, central, or of mixed type. For each nodule, the pulsatility index (PI) and resistive index (RI) values were obtained. Results of FNAB and surgical pathological examination (if available) were used as a proof of final diagnosis to categorize all nodules as benign or malignant. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to establish cut-off, sensitivity, and specificity values associated with RI-PI values. RESULTS: A significant relationship was observed between malignancy and irregular margins, microcalcifications, and hypoechogenicity on ultrasound examination (p < 0.05). The pattern of vascularity as determined by PDUS analysis was not a statistically significant criterion to suggest benign or malignant disease in this study (p > 0.05). The central, peripheral, and mean RI-PI values were higher in malignant nodules when compared to the other cytologies (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Vascularity is not a useful parameter for distinguishing malignant from benign thyroid nodules. However, RI and PI values are useful in distinguishing malignant from benign thyroid nodules.
Adult ; Aged ; Biopsy, Fine-Needle ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; ROC Curve ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Thyroid Neoplasms/pathology/*ultrasonography ; Thyroid Nodule/pathology/*ultrasonography ; *Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex ; Ultrasonography, Interventional

OBJECTIVETo study the effects of radiation emitted by mobile phones on bone strength and caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) on the changes induced by radiation.

METHODSForty-eight Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into five groups. Rats in the control group (first group) were left within the experimental setup for 30 min/day for 28 days without radiation exposure. Nine hundred MHz radiation group was broke down into 2 subgroups (group 1/2). Both subgroups were exposed to radiation for 28 days (30 min/day). The next group was also divided into 2 subgroups (group 3/4). Each was exposed to 1800 MHz of radiation for 28 days (30 min/day). The third and fifth groups were also treated with CAPE for 28 days. Treatment groups received ip caffeic acid phenethyl ester (10 micromol/kg per day) before radiation session. Bone fracture was analyzed.

RESULTSBreaking force, bending strength, and total fracture energy decreased in the irradiated groups but increased in the treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONRadiation and CAPE can significantly improve bone.

Animals ; Biomechanical Phenomena ; Bone Density ; Caffeic Acids ; administration & dosage ; Electromagnetic Fields ; Femur ; pathology ; Fractures, Bone ; prevention & control ; Male ; Phenylethyl Alcohol ; administration & dosage ; analogs & derivatives ; Radiation Injuries, Experimental ; prevention & control ; Radiation-Protective Agents ; administration & dosage ; Rats ; Rats, Sprague-Dawley

Purpose: Varicocele is a common problem among infertile men. Varicocele repair (VR) is frequently performed to improve semen parameters and the chances of pregnancy. However, there is a lack of consensus about the diagnosis, indications for VR and its outcomes. The aim of this study was to explore global practice patterns on the management of varicocele in the context of male infertility. Materials and Methods: Sixty practicing urologists/andrologists from 23 countries contributed 382 multiple-choice-questions pertaining to varicocele management. These were condensed into an online questionnaire that was forwarded to clinicians involved in male infertility management through direct invitation. The results were analyzed for disagreement and agreement in practice patterns and, compared with the latest guidelines of international professional societies (American Urological Association [AUA], American Society for Reproductive Medicine [ASRM], and European Association of Urology [EAU]), and with evidence emerging from recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Additionally, an expert opinion on each topic was provided based on the consensus of 16 experts in the field. Results: The questionnaire was answered by 574 clinicians from 59 countries. The majority of respondents were urologists/ uro-andrologists. A wide diversity of opinion was seen in every aspect of varicocele diagnosis, indications for repair, choice of technique, management of sub-clinical varicocele and the role of VR in azoospermia. A significant proportion of the responses were at odds with the recommendations of AUA, ASRM, and EAU. A large number of clinical situations were identified where no guidelines are available. Conclusions This study is the largest global survey performed to date on the clinical management of varicocele for male infertility. It demonstrates: 1) a wide disagreement in the approach to varicocele management, 2) large gaps in the clinical practice guidelines from professional societies, and 3) the need for further studies on several aspects of varicocele management in infertile men.