Mueller is to be congratulated for a comprehensive and detailed exposition on medical professionalism. There is no question but that professionalism is important—however, Mueller is correct to point out the complexities of the subject and the fact that there is no single or simple way to teach or assess professionalism. ...
As I shared in my January 2015 editorial, the furor surrounding publication in The Lancet of the open letter by P. Manduca et al. carried potential for bad and for good. Here at Rambam Health Care Campus, we have chosen and will continue to look for the good.
The Lumenis® High-power Holmium Laser (120H) has a unique modulated pulse mode, Moses™ technology. Moses technology modulates the laser pulse to separate the water (vapor bubble), then deliver the remaining energy through the bubble. Proprietary laser fibers were designed for the Moses technology. Our aim was to compare stone lithotripsy with and without the Moses technology.
Methods. We designed a questionnaire for the urologist to fill immediately after each ureteroscopy in which the Lumenis 120H was used. We compared procedures with (n=23) and without (n=11) the use of Moses technology. Surgeons ranked the Moses technology in 23 procedures, in comparison to regular lithotripsy (worse, equivalent, better, much better). Laser working time and energy use were collected from the Lumenis 120H log.
During 4 months, five urologists used the Lumenis 120H in 34 ureteroscopy procedures (19 kidney stones, 15 ureteral stones; 22 procedures with a flexible ureteroscope, and 12 with a semi-rigid ureteroscope). Three urologists ranked Moses technology as much better or better in 17 procedures. In 2 cases, it was ranked equivalent, and in 4 cases ranking was not done. Overall, laser lithotripsy with Moses technology utilized laser energy in less time to achieve a satisfying stone fragmentation rate of 95.8 mm3/min versus 58.1 mm3/min, P=0.19. However, this did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusion. The new Moses laser technology demonstrated good stone fragmentation capabilities when used in everyday clinical practice.
A great deal of biomedical research focuses on new biotechnologies such as gene editing, stem cell biology and reproductive medicine, which have created a scientific revolution. While the potential medical benefits of this research may be far-reaching, ethical issues related to non-medical applications of these technologies are demanding. We analyze, from a Jewish legal perspective, some of the ethical conundrums that society faces in pushing the outer limits in researching these new biotechnologies.
I am pleased to announce that the winner of the 2018 Maimonides Best Published Original Research Prize is Dr. Louise Kezerle, the first author of the paper entitled, “A Population-based Study of Peripartum Cardiomyopathy in Southern Israel: Are Bedouin Women a New High-risk Group?” with co-authors Iftach M. Sagy, Leah Shalev, Offer Erez, and Leonid Barski.
To the Editor,
I thank Rabbi Spitz for his thoughtful analysis. However, I humbly disagree with his conclusion that it is premature to classify e-cigarettes as “downright prohibited.”
To the Editor,
We read with great interest the original research published by Anatoli Stav et al.1 in which they com-pared supraclavicular (SCL), infraclavicular (ICL), and axillary (AX) approaches to the brachial plexus with ultrasonography for upper limb surgeries.1 They concluded that all approaches can be used to provide adequate anesthesia for upper limb sur-geries below the shoulder. Nevertheless, they also experienced some sparing and failed blocks: 3 patients from the SCL group, 3 from the ICL group, and 4 from the AX group had a positive pin-prick test; 2 patients from the AX group received sedation supplementation; and 1 patient in the AX group experienced ulnar sparing which required a general anesthetic. ...
To the Editor, Dr Nair’s letter to the editor regarding the failed nerve blocks mentioned in our paper, “Comparison of the supraclavicular, infraclavicular and axillary approaches for ultrasound-guided brachial plexus block for surgical anesthesia”,1 raised several points that I believe are worth looking at in more detail. We are grateful for Dr Nair’s comments which have contributed to the furthering of scholarly discourse.
In general, Dr Nair’s letter relates to the blocks that our research classified as failed. He then discusses various approaches and suggests the reason for the failures of the axillary approach blocks.
Portraits of pregnant women are rare in Catholic Renaissance art. In seventeenth-century Holland, the Catholic rule of Spain had been thrown off and a Protestant Calvinistic republic emerged, freeing Dutch artists to choose an unorthodox subject matter for their paintings. The Golden Age of Holland was characterized by extreme wealth, originating from overseas trade, which fostered a marked interest in philosophy, science, medicine, as well as art. Despite this, portraiture of pregnancy remained uncommon. An exception to this rule was Jan Vermeer of Delft, who lived during the zenith of this era. Jan Vermeer painted fewer than 40 pictures, fathered 15 children, and died bankrupt and little appreciated at the age of 43. Vermeer confined himself almost entirely to images of women in various domestic situations, including three figures of pregnant women. In this framework, pregnancy could be viewed as an icon for fidelity and conformism to social expectations. In this paper we investigate the roots of this unusual icon in Vermeer’s oeuvre, and suggest that the use of pregnancy in his paintings could have been inspired by his Delft-resident contemporaries Antony van Leeuwenhoek and Reinier de Graaf, fathers of well-known and opposing theories of reproduction. These eminent scientists and Vermeer’s pregnant wife, who frequently served as his model, might have made pregnancy less mysterious and more realistic to the painter.
The last 10 years have seen a renewed interest in a risk-adapted approach to the management of differentiated thyroid cancer. This review outlines a state-of-the-art approach to individualized management in which the original follow-up plan that was developed based on initial risk stratification is modified over time as new data become available. This risk-adapted follow-up approach allows clinicians to determine the intensity of follow-up and management recommendations in response to real-time dynamic risk assessments which may change over time.
