Determination of Fat,Moisture, and Protein in Meat and Meat Products by Using the FOSS FoodScan Near-Infrared Spectrophotometer with FOSS Artificial Neural Network Calibration Model and Associated Database: Collaborative Study

A collaborative study was conducted to evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of the FOSS FoodScan near-infrared spectrophotometer with artificial neural network calibration model and database for the determination of fat, moisture, and protein in meat and meat products. Representative samples were homogenized by grinding according to AOAC Official Method 983.18. Approximately 180 g ground sample was placed in a 140 mm round sample dish, and the dish was placed in the FoodScan. The operator ID was entered, the meat product profile within the software was selected, and the scanning process was initiated by pressing the start button. Results were displayed for percent (g/100 g) fat, moisture, and protein. Ten blind duplicate samples were sent to 15 collaborators in the United States. The within-laboratory (repeatability) relative standard deviation (RSDr) ranged from 0.22 to 2.67% for fat, 0.23 to 0.92% for moisture, and 0.35 to 2.13% for protein. The between-laboratories (reproducibility) relative standard deviation (RSDR) ranged from 0.52 to 6.89% for fat, 0.39 to 1.55% for moisture, and 0.54 to 5.23% for protein. The method is recommended for Official First Action.

Computer-assisted functional diagnostics of the craniomandibular system: development and experience in dental practice

A learning and diagnostic program for computer-assisted functional analysis of the craniomandibular system (CMS) is presented. The development and functionality of the program modules of "Anatomy and structural physiology of the CMS", "Learning program for manual functional analysis of the CMS" as well as "Computer-assisted functional diagnostics of the CMS" are described. The second part of the article is concerned with experience in practical use of the software at the treatment center.

Anesthetic efficacy of the intraosseous injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine (1:100,000 epinephrine) to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the anesthetic efficacy of an intraosseous injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine to augment an inferior alveolar nerve block in mandibular posterior teeth.

STUDY DESIGN

With the use of a repeated-measures design, each of 38 subjects randomly received one or the other of 2 combinations of injections at 2 separate appointments. The combinations were inferior alveolar nerve block + intraosseous injection (on the distal of the second premolar) through use of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and inferior alveolar nerve block + mock intraosseous injection. The first molar, second premolar, and second molar were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 2-minute cycles for 120 minutes postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when 2 consecutive 80 readings were obtained.

RESULTS

One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with the inferior alveolar nerve block + intraosseous injection combination technique. The respective anesthetic success rates for the inferior alveolar nerve block + mock intraosseous injection combination and the inferior alveolar nerve block + intraosseous injection combination were 60% and 100% for the second premolar, 71% and 95% for the first molar, and 74% and 87% for the second molar. The differences were significant (P < .05) for the second premolar through 50 minutes and for the first molar through 20 minutes. There were no significant (P > .05) differences for the second molar. Sixty-eight percent of the subjects had a subjective increase in heart rate with the intraosseous injection.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that the supplemental intraosseous injection of 0.9 mL of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine, given distal to the second premolar, significantly increased the success of pulpal anesthesia in the second premolar (for 50 minutes) and first molar (for 20 minutes) in comparison with the inferior alveolar nerve block alone. The intraosseous injection did not statistically increase success in the second molar.

Anesthetic efficacy of a repeated intraosseous injection given 30 min following an inferior alveolar nerve block/intraosseous injection

To determine whether a repeated intraosseous (IO) injection would increase or prolong pulpal anesthesia, we measured the degree of anesthesia obtained by a repeated IO injection given 30 min following a combination inferior alveolar nerve block/intraosseous injection (IAN/IO) in mandibular second premolars and in first and second molars. Using a repeated-measures design, we randomly assigned 38 subjects to receive two combinations of injections at two separate appointments. The combinations were an IAN/IO injection followed approximately 30 min later by another IO injection of 0.9 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine and a combination IAN/IO injection followed approximately 30 min later by a mock IO injection. The second premolar, first molar, and second molar were blindly tested with an Analytic Technology pulp tester at 2-min cycles for 120 min postinjection. Anesthesia was considered successful when two consecutive readings of 80 were obtained. One hundred percent of the subjects had lip numbness with IAN/IO and with IAN/IO plus repeated IO techniques. Rates of anesthetic success for the IAN/IO and for the IAN/IO plus repeated IO injection, respectively, were 100% and 97% for the second premolar, 95% and 95% for the first molar, and 87% and 87% for the second molar. The repeated IO injection increased pulpal anesthesia for approximately 14 min in the second premolar and for 6 min in the first molar, but no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were shown. In conclusion, the repeated IO injection of 0.9 ml of 2% lidocaine with 1:100,000 epinephrine given 30 min following a combination IAN/IO injection did not significantly increase pulpal anesthesia in mandibular second premolars or in first and second molars.

Gemcitabine: a cytidine analogue active against solid tumors

The pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, adverse effects, and dosage and administration of gemcitabine are reviewed. Gemcitabine is a deoxycytidine-analogue antimetabolite with activity against some solid tumors. Gemcitabine is phosphorylated intracellularly to difluorodeoxycytidine triphosphate, which terminates DNA-chain elongation and competitively inhibits DNA polymerase and ribonucleotide reductase. After i.v. administration, gemcitabine is rapidly distributed into total body water. The drug is deaminated in the plasma to inactive difluorodeoxyuridine; both gemcitabine and difluorodeoxyuridine are primarily renally eliminated. In clinical studies, gemcitabine reduced pain and improved function in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine has shown some activity against non-small-cell lung cancer, particularly when combined with cisplatin or ifosfamide. The agent has also shown modest activity against advanced ovarian and breast cancer. Adverse effects include dose-limiting myelosuppression, flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and rash. Gemcitabine has FDA-approved labeling for use in the treatment of locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. The recommended dosage for this indication is 1000 mg/m2 (as the hydrochloride salt) i.v. given over 30 minutes weekly for seven weeks, followed after one week of rest by 1000 mg/ m2 i.v. given over 30 minutes weekly for three weeks every four weeks. Gemcitabine palliates symptoms in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. More study is needed to determine gemcitabine's role in the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, ovarian cancer, and breast cancer.

Postoperative course after sufentanil or fentanyl anesthesia for coronary artery surgery

Postoperative hemodynamic effects were compared in 50 patients randomly selected to receive either sufentanil, 25 micrograms/kg, or fentanyl, 100 micrograms/kg, anesthesia for coronary artery bypass grafting. The two groups exhibited similar patient demographics; dose of premedicants and muscle relaxants; and use of inhalation agents. Values for 15 hemodynamic variables were recorded at baseline and at six postoperative times. The times to awakening, response to verbal commands, and extubation were also noted. Patients who received sufentanil had a more stable course, with higher cardiac outputs, lower systemic vascular resistances, and a lower incidence of hypertension. Postoperatively, the two groups had similar values for time to awakening, response to verbal commands, and extubation. Elimination half-lives differed significantly: 554 +/- 91 minutes (fentanyl) versus 277 +/- 60 minutes (sufentanil). Serum concentrations of both decreased linearly. The added advantages of postoperative hemodynamic stability could be important in the choice of anesthetic.

A comparison of enflurane with alfentanil anaesthesia for gynaecological surgery

Forty patients undergoing gynaecological surgery were randomly assigned to receive either alfentanil and thiopentone for induction of anaesthesia, followed by alfentanil-N2O/O2 (60%/40%) for maintenance of anaesthesia, or low-dose fentanyl and thiopentone, followed by enflurane-N2O/O2 (60%/40%). More patients given enflurane developed a tachycardia (P less than 0.03) and 20% decreases in systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Times to recovery were significantly shorter after alfentanil than after enflurane. Plasma concentrations of alfentanil during induction suggested that haemodynamic and catecholamine responses were either less than, or did not differ from, baseline levels when the plasma concentration of the drug exceeded 150 ng ml-1. At extubation and the beginning of spontaneous breathing, the plasma concentration was 278 +/- 129 ng ml-1. Values for pharmacokinetic parameters of alfentanil were as follows: clearance, 5.2 +/- 2.0 ml kg-1 min-1; volume of distribution, 0.63 +/- 0.20 1 kg-1; and elimination half-life, 96.9 +/- 52.5 min. Two patients who had extended surgery had significantly lower plasma clearance of alfentanil and increased half-life. The authors conclude that the alfentanil technique was preferable to maintenance with enflurane.