Objective:To analyze the clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral(bi-)and unilateral(uni-) sudden sensorineural hearing loss(SSNHL).Method:Four hundred and eighty cases of SSNHL were retrospective study,which were divided into two groups of bi-SSNHL(n=40) and uni-SSNHL(n=440).Clinical characteristics and treatment effects were compared of the two groups.Result:The incidence rate of bi-SSNHL was 8.3 percent and uni-SSNHL was 91.7 percent of all patients with SSNHL. Bi-SSNHL occurs more commonly in patients of old age, diabetes mellitus, and lipid panes abnormalities compared to uni-SSNHL. Twenty-eight ears in the bi-SSNHL group showed hearing recovery (35%),compared with 56.4 percent of patients with uni-SSNHL.Conclusion:Bi-SSNHL and uni-SSNHL may have a completely different clinical characteristics and treatment effect,that implies a different pathophysiology and prognosis. Recognition their different clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral and unilateral SSNHL can help in counseling and managing the patients and correctly evaluate the prognosis.

OBJECTIVE:To observe the effect of electrolytes on the stability of fat emulsion in ALL IN ONE.METHODS: The size of fat emulsion particulates was observed under microscope in 400 - fold magnification.The oil - water demixing was observed with naked eye.RESULTS:The higher the concentration of electrolytes,the stronger the influence on the fat emulsion particulates aggregation and the easier the oil - water demixing appeared.The influence of bivalent ions was stronger than that of monovalent ones.The longer the mixture stored the stronger the influence.CONCLUSION:In order to keep the stability of ALL IN ONE,the concentrations of electrolytes should not be too high,and ALL IN ONE must be used up in 24 hours.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral (bi-) and unilateral (uni-) sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSNHL). METHOD: Four hundred and eighty cases of SSNHL were retrospective study, which were divided into two groups of bi-SSNHL (n = 40) and uni-SSNHL (n = 440). Clinical characteristics and treatment effects were compared of the two groups. RESULT: The incidence rate of bi-SSNHL was 8.3 percent and uni-SSNHL was 91.7 percent of all patients with SSNHL. Bi-SSNHL occurs more commonly in patients of old age, diabetes mellitus, and lipid panes abnormalities compared to uni-SSNHL. Twenty-eight ears in the bi-SSNHL group showed hearing recovery (35%), compared with 56.4 percent of patients with uni-SSNHL. CONCLUSION Bi-SSNHL and uni-SSNHL may have a completely different clinical characteristics and treatment effect, that implies a different pathophysiology and prognosis. Recognition their different clinical characteristics and treatment effect between bilateral and unilateral SSNHL can help in counseling and managing the patients and correctly evaluate the prognosis.
Adult ; Female ; Hearing Loss, Bilateral ; diagnosis ; therapy ; Hearing Loss, Sudden ; diagnosis ; therapy ; Hearing Loss, Unilateral ; diagnosis ; therapy ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relation of sudden deafness with hearing loss level and auditory threshold. METHOD: A retrospective analysis was performed in 92 cases(97 years) of sudden deafness patients. RESULT: In this group,the best hearing loss prognosis was the ascend type and the back type the total effective rate was both 100.0%. The second was the slow descend type. The total effective rate of this type was 70.0% (7/10). the total effective rate of full deaf is 66.7% (14/21), the sudden descend type is poor, the effective rate was 50% (4/8). although the full deaf groups total effective rate was high than sudden descend type, without one ear completely recovering, and only one ear from sudden descend type was completely cured. After treatment, there were 6 ears of fall deaf in full deaf group. There was one case rised 65 dBHL and one case rised 50 dBHL from the 21 cases full deaf sufferer. In this deaf level group, the light level and the middle level was one ear respectively. Although the total effective rate of this group was the highest, all the cases were not completely recovered. After treatment, the hearing rise 17 dBHL and 19 dBHL respectively. After chi2 text (chi2 = 1.459, P > 0.05), the total effective rate of the more heavier, heavy, and the heaviest to full deaf was no significant difference but after chi2 text (chi2 = 10.09, P < 0.01), the full recover rate was significant difference. The more heavier level group's full recover rate was the highest 38.5% (10/26).the second was heavy level group ,the full recover rate is 33.3% (12/36), the worst level to full deaf group was the lowest: 6.0% (2/33). CONCLUSION It was considered that the deafness level was no obvious relation to the total effective rate, but there was significant difference in fully recover rate. The different auditory threshold figure of the sudden deafness was closely related to the hearings prognosis.
Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Auditory Threshold ; Child ; Female ; Hearing Loss ; Hearing Loss, Sudden ; diagnosis ; physiopathology ; Hearing Tests ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prognosis ; Retrospective Studies ; Young Adult

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the therapeutic effects of conventional treatment with different routes of administration of dexamethasone on sudden deafness. METHOD: Eighty-four patients with sudden deafness were included in this prospective randomized study. Twenty one patients (group 1) were treated with taking dexamethasone orally combined with conventional methods. Another 21 patients (group 2) were treated with intravenous dexamethasone injection combined with conventional methods. Group 3 (21 patients) were treated with intratympanic dexamethasone injection by the way of external ear combined with conventional methods. The other 21 patients (group 4) were treated with intratympanic dexamethasone injection by the way of pharyngotympanic tube combined with conventional methods. The hearing gains at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz and the mean values were compared among four groups. RESULTS: The average hearing gains of 1, 2, 3 and 4 group was 21.3 dB, 27.5 dB, 43.2 dB and 48.1 dB respectively. Group 3 and group 4 had statistical difference compared with group 1 and group 2 in the average hearing gains. There was no obviously statistical difference between group 1 and group 2 and between group 3 and group 4. In patients with PTA < or = 70 dB, the average hearing gains at 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0 kHz had no obvious difference (P > 0.05) among four groups. However, in patients with PTA > 70 dB, there was statistical difference between group 1, 2 and group 3, 4 (P < 0.05), the hearing gains of group 3. 4 were apparently higher than that of group 1, 2. However, there was no significant difference of hearing gains between group 1 and group 2 (P > 0.05) and between group 3 and group 4 (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION The conventional drug treatment with taking dexamethasone orally or intravenous dexamethasone injection had no obvious effect on sudden deafness with PTA > 70 dB, but the conventional drug treatment with intratympanic dexamethasone injection is a useful treatment for sudden deafness. Comparison with whole body administration, intratympanic dexamethasone injection is more convenient to use in clinic, and with less prohibitions and complications. Patients with PTA > 70 dB should take intratympanic dexamethasone injection in early days.
Adult ; Dexamethasone ; administration & dosage ; therapeutic use ; Drug Administration Routes ; Female ; Hearing Loss, Sudden ; drug therapy ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Prospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

TNBC is a special type of breast cancer with strong aggressiveness and poor prognosis. Chemotherapy is still the main treatment for TNBC, due to poor efficacy of endocrine therapy and targeted therapy. However, TNBC is a kind of heterogeneous disease, so it is urgent to study the precise molecular types and explore new precision treatment. This paper will summarize the results of clinical trials and analyze treatment strategies for TNBC, including surgical treatment, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, in order to provide evidence for clinical management.

Objective:To verify the efficacy and safety of daily oral minodronate in postmenopausal women with established osteoporosis.Methods:In this randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, 262 postmenopausal women were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive daily oral minodronate 1 mg with supplements of 500 mg calcium and 200 U vitamin D 3 ( n=130) or placebo ( n=132) with daily supplements of 500 mg calcium and 200 U vitamin D 3, for 48 weeks. The primary endpoint was the average bone mineral density (BMD) change in the lumbar vertebrae 48 weeks post-treatment. Secondary outcome measures was the incidence of vertebral fractures. Safety assessments included the rate of adverse events. Results:At the end of 48 weeks treatment, the average BMD change rate from baseline were: full analysis set results: (3.52±4.82)% in the minodronate group and (2.00±5.74)% in the placebo group; per-protocol set results: (3.99±5.05)% in the minodronate group and (2.07±6.20)% in the placebo group; the differences were all significant (all P<0.05). Vertebral fracture occured in 3 patients (2.3%, 3/132) in the placebo group, and 1 case (0.8%, 1/130) in the minodronate group ( P>0.05). The incidence of adverse events was 71.5% (93/130) in the minodronate group and 78.0% (103/132) in the placebo group ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Minodronate is effective and safe in the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis without severe side effects.