References of "BMC Medicine"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailMuscle: a source of progenitor cells for bone fracture healing.
Henrotin, Yves ULg

in BMC Medicine (2011), 9

Bone repair failure is a major complication of open fracture, leading to non-union of broken bone extremities and movement at the fracture site. This results in a serious disability for patients. The role ... [more ▼]

Bone repair failure is a major complication of open fracture, leading to non-union of broken bone extremities and movement at the fracture site. This results in a serious disability for patients. The role played by the periosteum and bone marrow progenitors in bone repair is now well documented. In contrast, limited information is available on the role played by myogenic progenitor cells in bone repair. In a recent article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, Liu et al. compared the presence of myogenic progenitor (MyoD lineage cells) in closed and open fractures. They showed that myogenic progenitors are present in open, but not closed fractures, suggesting that muscle satellite cells may colonize the fracture site in the absence of intact periosteum. Interestingly, these progenitors sequentially expressed a chondrogenic and, thereafter, an osteoblastic phenotype, suggestive of a functional role in the repair process. This finding opens up new perspectives for the research of orthopedic surgical methods, which could maximize myogenic progenitor access and mobilization to augment bone repair. Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2474/12/288. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 8 (0 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailUnresponsive wakefulness syndrome: a new name for the vegetative state or apallic syndrome.
Laureys, Steven ULg; Celesia, Gastone G; Cohadon, Francois et al

in BMC Medicine (2010), 8

BACKGROUND: Some patients awaken from coma (that is, open the eyes) but remain unresponsive (that is, only showing reflex movements without response to command). This syndrome has been coined vegetative ... [more ▼]

BACKGROUND: Some patients awaken from coma (that is, open the eyes) but remain unresponsive (that is, only showing reflex movements without response to command). This syndrome has been coined vegetative state. We here present a new name for this challenging neurological condition: unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (abbreviated UWS). DISCUSSION: Many clinicians feel uncomfortable when referring to patients as vegetative. Indeed, to most of the lay public and media vegetative state has a pejorative connotation and seems inappropriately to refer to these patients as being vegetable-like. Some political and religious groups have hence felt the need to emphasize these vulnerable patients' rights as human beings. Moreover, since its first description over 35 years ago, an increasing number of functional neuroimaging and cognitive evoked potential studies have shown that physicians should be cautious to make strong claims about awareness in some patients without behavioral responses to command. Given these concerns regarding the negative associations intrinsic to the term vegetative state as well as the diagnostic errors and their potential effect on the treatment and care for these patients (who sometimes never recover behavioral signs of consciousness but often recover to what was recently coined a minimally conscious state) we here propose to replace the name. CONCLUSION: Since after 35 years the medical community has been unsuccessful in changing the pejorative image associated with the words vegetative state, we think it would be better to change the term itself. We here offer physicians the possibility to refer to this condition as unresponsive wakefulness syndrome or UWS. As this neutral descriptive term indicates, it refers to patients showing a number of clinical signs (hence syndrome) of unresponsiveness (that is, without response to commands) in the presence of wakefulness (that is, eye opening). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 42 (5 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailVaricella vaccination in Europe – taking the practical approach
Bonanni, Paolo; Breuer, Judith; Gershon, Anne A. et al

in BMC Medicine (2009), 7(26), 1-38

Varicella is a common viral disease affecting almost the entire birth cohort. Although usually self-limiting, some cases of varicella can be serious, with 2 to 6% of cases attending a general practice ... [more ▼]

Varicella is a common viral disease affecting almost the entire birth cohort. Although usually self-limiting, some cases of varicella can be serious, with 2 to 6% of cases attending a general practice resulting in complications. The hospitalisation rate for varicella in Europe ranges from 1.3 to 4.5 per 100,000 population/year and up to 10.1% of hospitalised patients report permanent or possible permanent sequelae (for example, scarring or ataxia). However, in many countries the epidemiology of varicella remains largely unknown or incomplete. In countries where routine childhood vaccination against varicella has been implemented, it has had a positive effect on disease prevention and control. Furthermore, mathematical models indicate that this intervention strategy may provide economic benefits for the individual and society. Despite this evidence and recommendations for varicella vaccination by official bodies such as the World Health Organization, and scientific experts in the field, the majority of European countries (with the exception of Germany and Greece) have delayed decisions on implementation of routine childhood varicella vaccination, choosing instead to vaccinate high-risk groups or not to vaccinate at all. In this paper, members of the Working Against Varicella in Europe group consider the practicalities of introducing routine childhood varicella vaccination in Europe, discussing the benefits and challenges of different vaccination options (vaccination vs. no vaccination, routine vaccination of infants vs. vaccination of susceptible adolescents or adults, two doses vs. one dose of varicella vaccine, monovalent varicella vaccines vs. tetravalent measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines, as well as the optimal interval between two doses of measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines). Assessment of the epidemiology of varicella in Europe and evidence for the effectiveness of varicella vaccination provides support for routine childhood programmes in Europe. Although European countries are faced with challenges or uncertainties that may have delayed implementation of a childhood vaccination programme, many of these concerns remain hypothetical and with new opportunities offered by combined measles, mumps, rubella and varicella vaccines, reassessment may be timely. In countries where routine childhood vaccination against varicella has been implemented, it has had a positive effect on disease prevention and control. Furthermore, mathematical models indicate that this intervention strategy may provide economic benefits for the individual and society. Despite this evidence and recommendations for varicella vaccination by official bodies such as the World Health Organization, and scientific experts in the field, the majority of European countries (with the exception of Germany and Greece) have delayed decisions on implementation of routine childhood varicella vaccination, choosing instead to vaccinate high-risk groups or not to vaccinate at all. In this paper, members of the Working Against Varicella in Europe group consider the practicalities of introducing routine childhood varicella vaccination in Europe, discussing the benefits and challenges of different vaccination options (vaccination vs. no vaccination, routine vaccination of infants vs. vaccination of susceptible adolescents or adults, two doses vs. one dose of varicella vaccine, monovalent varicella vaccines vs. tetravalent measles, mumps, rubella and varicella [MMRV] vaccines, as well as the optimal interval between two doses of MMRV vaccines). Assessment of the epidemiology of varicella in Europe and evidence for the effectiveness of varicella vaccination provides support for routine childhood programmes in Europe. Although European countries are faced with challenges or uncertainties that may have delayed implementation of a childhood vaccination programme, many of these concerns remain hypothetical and with new opportunities offered by combined MMRV vaccines, reassessment may be timely. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 202 (50 ULg)