BackgroundTo determine the epidemiology and risk factors for nosocomial infection (NI) in the Respiratory Intensive Care Unit (RICU) of a teaching hospital in Northwest China.MethodsAn observational, prospective surveillance was conducted in the RICU from 2013 to 2015. The overall infection rate, distribution of infection sites, device-associated infections and pathogen in the RICU were investigated. Then, the logistic regression analysis was used to test the risk factors for RICU infection.ResultsIn this study, 102 out of 1347 patients experienced NI. Among them, 87 were device-associated infection. The overall prevalence of NI was 7.57% with varied rates from 7.19 to 7.73% over the 3 years. The lower respiratory tract (43.1%), urinary tract (26.5%) and bloodstream (20.6%) infections accounted for the majority of infections. The device-associated infection rates of urinary catheter, central catheter and ventilator were 9.8, 7.4 and 7.4 per 1000 days, respectively.The most frequently isolated pathogens were Staphylococcus aureus (20.9%), Klebsiella pneumoniae (16.4%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (10.7%). Multivariate analysis showed that the categories D or E of Average Severity of Illness Score (ASIS), length of stay (10–30, 30–60, ≥60 days), immunosuppressive therapy and ventilator use are the independent risk factors for RICU infection with an adjusted odds ratio (OR) of 1.65 (95% CI: 1.15~2.37), 5.22 (95% CI: 2.63~10.38)), 2.32 (95% CI: 1.19~4.65), 8.93 (95% CI: 3.17~21.23), 31.25 (95% CI: 11.80~63.65)) and 2.70 (95% CI: 1.33~5.35), respectively.ConclusionA relatively low and stable rate of NI was observed in our RICU through year 2013–2015. The ASIS-D、E, stay ≥10 days, immunosuppressive therapy and ventilator use are the independent risk factors for RICU infection.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) are heterogeneous nanoparticles actively released by cells that comprise highly conserved and efficient systems of intercellular communication. In recent years, numerous studies have proven that EVs play an important role in the field of bone tissue engineering (BTE) due to several advantages, such as good biosafety, stability and efficient delivery. However, the application of EVs therapies in bone regeneration has not been widely used. One of the major challenges for the application of EVs is the lack of sufficient scaffolds to load and control the release of EVs. Thus, in this review, we describe the most advanced current strategies for delivering EVs with various biomaterials for the use in bone regeneration, the role of EVs in bone regeneration, the distribution of EVs mediated by biomaterials and common methods of promoting EVs delivery efficacy with a focus on biomaterial properties.

No abstract

Objective To evaluate the accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of voxel- and surface-based registrations for cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) mandibular superimposition in adult orthodontic patients. Methods Pre- and post-orthodontic treatment CBCT scans of 27 adult patients were obtained. Voxel- and surface-based CBCT mandibular superimpositions were performed using the mandibular basal bone as a reference. The accuracy of the two methods was evaluated using the absolute mean distance measured. The time that was required to perform the measurements using these methods was also compared. Statistical differences were determined using paired t-tests, and inter-observer reliability was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results The absolute mean distance on seven mandible surface areas between voxel- and surface-based registrations was similar but not significantly different. ICC values of the surface-based registration were 0.918 to 0.990, which were slightly lower than those of voxel-based registration that ranged from 0.984 to 0.996. The time required for voxel-based registration and surface-based registration was 44.6 ± 2.5 s and 252.3 ± 7.1 s, respectively. Conclusions Both methods are accurate and reliable and not significantly different from each other. However, voxel-based registration is more efficient than surface-based registration for CBCT mandibular superimposition.