SummaryPressurised infusion devices may have only limited capability to detect and remove air during pressurised infusions. In order to assess pressure infusion systems with regard to their actual air elimination capabilities four disposable pressure infusion systems and fluid warmers were investigated: The Level 1Ò (L-1), Ranger Ò (RA), GymarÒ (GY), and the WarmfloÒ (WF). Different volumes of air were injected proximal to the heat exchanger and the remaining amount of air that was delivered at the end of the tubing was measured during pressurised infusions. Elimination of the injected air (100-200 ml) was superior by the RA system when compared to L-1 (p < 0.01). The GY and WF systems failed to eliminate the injected air. In conclusion, air elimination was best performed by the RA system. In terms of the risk of air embolism during pressurised infusions, improvements in air elimination of the investigated devices are still necessary.

No abstract

Both the Hotline and the Autoline heated infusions sufficiently at low flow rates. However, the heating capability of the Hotline was superior and can further be increased at low flow rates by increasing the room temperature.

Fossil material for palynological research, i.e. several samples of clays, was obtained in January 1954 from Mr. N. W. Edwards, Keeper of Geology of the British Museum. The samples of clays turned out to be intensely sandy; they were 'barren' as far as content of plant microfossils is concerned. The method of prolonged maceration (18 months in 40% HF) was applied. After 18 months the macerated clays produced pollen material sufficiently abundant to be fit for microscopic pollen analysis. Table i. Alphabetic list of recent plant genera and species having fruits and seeds similar to

We report the rare case of an in situ fracture of a spinal needle within the setting of repeated caesarean delivery in a 28-year-old pregnant woman and discuss the responsible underlying factors. In particular, a wrong technique, limited experience, difficulties to identify the anatomical landmarks, as well as the use of spinal needles smaller than 25 G might promote such a complication. In order to ensure the stability of the spinal needle and to avoid an in situ fracture, the spinal needle should be never moved without the stylet. In case of repeated bone contact, a well-experienced anaesthetist should be consulted, the spinal needle should be replaced and the use of ultrasound is recommended. Next, the use of an atraumatic spinal needle greater than 27 G should be considered to facilitate intrathecal puncture and to avoid the in situ fracture of a spinal needle. Within this context, the risk of post-spinal puncture headache should be balanced. If an in situ fracture of a spinal needle happens, its subsequent removal should be planned without delay by an interdisciplinary team and the anaesthetic method should be chosen with consideration of patient-specific risk factors.

It seems to me to be necessary to give some remarks as a commentary to my article, since the attitude of some European scientists toward the problem discussed in my paper is (considering the second half of the twentieth century) a rather particular one. I have encountered the following opinions and remarks: " It is known that the diluvial theory of Penck and Bri.ickner is ambiguous, but one cannot agree with the hypotheses given in the article ", .. or" It is true that many scientist tried to find a correlation between the glaciations in Alpes and the remaining part of Europe (A. I<:. Wells, W. B. Wright, L. J. Wills, J. F. Kirkaldy). and that they have stated many contradictions, nevertheless the explanation of these contradictions given in the article is hardly accepted " ... , or "The attempts of shaking the diluvial theory of Penck and Bruckner are not friendly accepted by the scientists, being not supported by most of them".According to my opinion, such attitudes, luckily not general ones, are anti-scientific.It is up to the science to put hypotheses and theories, provided that it has its disposal the well-grounded facts.But it is also up to the science to shake the hypotheses and to put them to a critical analysis, as the new facts that may be used as necessary arguments become available.The science cannot base its activity upon the faith in infallibility of scientificial authorities.A scientific discussion which admits the facts, the observed phenomena and their logical interpretation is the only basis for any scientificial activity.The scientists who forget this truism are at the same time dooming the domain of science represented by them to decrepitude.I am referring in my article to the papers of Koppen, \Vegener, Gams, Bryan, Pflug, Schwarzbach. These papers cannot be ignored, as they faithfully represent the stated facts which every scientist• must take under consideration.The diluvial theory of Penck and Bruckner cannot stand in its present form, because of the contradictions it contains. Changes which must be introduced into this hypothesis are justified by numerous and new conquests of the science. In such a situation every conception which brings some new elements into the diluvial theory of Penck and Bruckner ought to be discussed in a scientific way. If an argument of this new conception is fallacious and not acceptable, the error must be distinctly pointed out. The same critera must be applied if the value of the new hypotheses is to be estimated, and only such a discussion may bring positive results.

No abstract

The Autoline demonstrated sufficient heating capabilities at flow rates between 50 and 200 ml/h, which can be further increased by pre-heating the infusions to 36 degrees C. At flow rates above 200 ml/h, however, it becomes necessary to use pre-heated infusions, whereas at flow rates above 600 ml/h it becomes further necessary to also use the Autotherm device if final infusates of at least 34 degrees C are to be achieved.