The current reference standard to make a definitive diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection is the reverse transcription- polymerase chain reaction assay (rt-PCR). However, radiological imaging plays a crucial role in evaluating the course of COVID-19 and in choosing proper management of infected patients. Chest X-ray (CXR) is generally considered not to be sensitive for the detection of pulmonary abnormalities in the early stage of the disease. However, in the emergency setting CXR can be a useful diagnostic tool for monitoring the rapid progression of lung involvement in COVID-19, especially in patients admitted to intensive care units. The rapid course of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the severity and progression of lung aberrations require a method of radiological evaluation to implement and manage the appropriate treatment for infected patients. Computed tomography (CT) imaging is considered to be the most effective method for the detection of lung abnormalities, especially in the early stage of the disease. Moreover, serial chest CT imaging with different time intervals is also effective in estimating the evolution of the disease from initial diagnosis to discharge from hospital. Despite having low specificity in distinguishing abnormalities in viral infections, the high sensitivity of CT makes this method ideal for assessing the severity of the disease in patients with confirmed COVID-19. In this review, we present and discuss currently available scales that can be used to assess the severity of lung involvement in COVID-19 patients in everyday work, both for CXR and CT imaging.

Background TEA (thoracic epidural analgesia) is considered a basic method of analgesia used in thoracic surgeries. PVB (paravertebral block) is an alternative method. The thesis compares effectiveness of both methods in postoperative analgesia with particular focus on assessment of the postoperative pain management quality. Methods The study involved 2 groups of patients, each consisting of 30 patients undergoing posterolateral thoracotomy. The study group involved patients anesthetized applying PVB method, while the control group involved patients anesthetized with TEA. Hemodynamic and respiratory parameters as well as severity of pain assessed using NRS (numeric rating scale) during the first 3 days after the surgery, number of days of hospitalization, and the need to use additional pain relievers were taken into account in both groups. Evaluation of postoperative pain management quality was performed applying Clinical Quality Indicators in Postoperative Pain Management. Results No statistical significance was demonstrated between the groups in respect of hemodynamic and respiratory parameters values, the need to use additional pain relievers and the number of days of hospitalization. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in respect of general assessment of pain management quality, except for the assessment of the lowest level of pain within the last 24 h of measurement. This result in TEA group was statistically significantly lower than the one in PVB group ( p = 0.019). Conclusions In the assessment of postoperative pain management quality both analyzed methods are statistically significantly different only in the category of “lowest level of pain within the last 24 hours of measurement”, to the benefit of TEA group. No statistically significant difference has been observed between the two study groups with respect to the remaining parameters. Trial registration KB-0012/71/15. Date of registration 22 June 2015.

The COVID-19 vaccination has been the subject of unprecedented misinformation, false news, and public concerns. This study presents a unique analysis comprising persons who were not vaccinated and became ill. It investigates reasons for not vaccinating and evaluates how the personal experience of COVID-19 affected further attitudes and decisions related to health. The study included 730 consecutive unvaccinated patients hospitalized in 12 centers in Poland during the autumn 2021 pandemic wave. The most frequent reason behind the refusal to receive the vaccine was concern over the adverse effects, disbelief that the vaccine was sufficiently tested, and one’s conviction that COVID-19 will not affect a patient. Online information, friends, spouse, children/grandchildren, and other family members were most often the source of discouragement from vaccination. Most individuals regretted their decision not to receive a vaccine (66.0%), declared to promote COVID-19 vaccination after discharge (64.0%), and to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in the time recommended for convalescents (69.5%). Individuals expressing no regrets of vaccine refusal more frequently revealed conspiracy beliefs. The study shows that personal experience with severe COVID-19 can influence the perception of vaccination, but approximately one-third of unvaccinated hospitalized patients still appear to express vaccine hesitancy.

The colonizing bacterial cells and their DNA were detected in fracture callus but not in other deep tissues. Contamination was precluded by lack of isolates in disinfected cutis, subcutis, muscles, and materials used for sampling cultured after surgery. We suggest that certain strains of bacteria dwell in normal tissues of lower limbs and may cause inflammation upon stimulation by trauma. Their source may be tissue fluid, superficial and deep lymphatics, and lymph serving the physiologic transport to the regional lymph nodes of microorganisms penetrating foot skin during microinjuries.