Prompt and appropriate imaging work-up of the various musculoskeletal soft tissue infections aids early diagnosis and treatment and decreases the risk of complications resulting from misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis. The signs and symptoms of musculoskeletal soft tissue infections can be nonspecific, making it clinically difficult to distinguish between disease processes and the extent of disease. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the imaging modality of choice in the evaluation of soft tissue infections. Computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, radiography and nuclear medicine studies are considered ancillary. This manuscript illustrates representative images of superficial and deep soft tissue infections such as infectious cellulitis, superficial and deep fasciitis, including the necrotizing fasciitis, pyomyositis/soft tissue abscess, septic bursitis and tenosynovitis on different imaging modalities, with emphasis on MRI. Typical histopathologic findings of soft tissue infections are also presented. The imaging approach described in the manuscript is based on relevant literature and authors' personal experience and everyday practice.
Foreign bodies are uncommon, but they are important and interesting. Foreign bodies may be ingested, inserted into a body cavity, or deposited into the body by a traumatic or iatrogenic injury. Most ingested foreign bodies pass through the gastrointestinal tract without a problem. Most foreign bodies inserted into a body cavity cause only minor mucosal injury. However, ingested or inserted foreign bodies may cause bowel obstruction or perforation; lead to severe hemorrhage, abscess formation, or septicemia; or undergo distant embolization. Motor vehicle accidents and bullet wounds are common causes of traumatic foreign bodies. Metallic objects, except aluminum, are opaque, and most animal bones and all glass foreign bodies are opaque on radiographs. Most plastic and wooden foreign bodies (cactus thorns, splinters) and most fish bones are not opaque on radiographs. All patients should be thoroughly screened for foreign bodies before undergoing a magnetic resonance imaging study.
The amount of BME in the OA hip, as measured by MRI, correlates with the severity of pain, radiographic findings, and number of microfractures.
The meaning of 'most' can be described in many ways. We offer a framework for distinguishing semantic descriptions, interpreted as psychological hypotheses that go beyond claims about sentential truth conditions, and an experiment that tells against an attractive idea: 'most' is understood in terms of one-to-one correspondence. Adults evaluated 'Most of the dots are yellow', as true or false, on many trials in which yellow dots and blue dots were displayed for 200 ms. Displays manipulated the ease of using a 'one-to-one with remainder' strategy, and a strategy of using the Approximate Number System to compare of (approximations of) cardinalities. Interpreting such data requires care in thinking about how meaning is related to verification. But the results suggest that 'most' is understood in terms of cardinality comparison, even when counting is impossible.How is the word 'most' related to human capacities for detecting and comparing numerosities? One might think the answer is obvious, and explicit in standard semantic theories: 'most' is understood in terms of a capacity to compare cardinal numbers; e.g. 'Most of the dots are yellow' means that the number of yellow dots is greater than the number of nonyellow dots. But there are other possibilities for how competent speakers understand 'most', and we offer experimental evidence that tells against some initially attractive hypotheses. By discussing one lexical item in this way, we hope to illustrate how semantics and psychology can and should be pursued in tandem, especially with regard to the capacities that let humans become numerate.Following common practice in semantics, we begin by characterizing the contribution of 'most' to the truth conditions of sentences that have the following form: Most (of the) s are . At this level of analysis, there are many equivalent characterizations, as discussed below. Our aim is to give some of these formal distinctions empirical bite, in a way that permits adjudication of distinct hypotheses about how speakers understand 'most ' (cf. Hackl, 2009). In short, we want to know how speakers represent the truth conditions in question.
The basic goal of fracture fixation is to stabilize the fractured bone, to enable fast healing of the injured bone, and to return early mobility and full function of the injured extremity. Fractures can be treated conservatively or with external and internal fixation. Conservative fracture treatment consists of closed reduction to restore the bone alignment. Subsequent stabilization is then achieved with traction or external splinting by slings, splints, or casts. Braces are used to limit range of motion of a joint. External fixators provide fracture fixation based on the principle of splinting. There are three basic types of external fixators: standard uniplanar fixator, ring fixator, and hybrid fixator. The numerous devices used for internal fixation are roughly divided into a few major categories: wires, pins and screws, plates, and intramedullary nails or rods. Staples and clamps are also used occasionally for osteotomy or fracture fixation. Autogenous bone grafts, allografts, and bone graft substitutes are frequently used for the treatment of bone defects of various causes. For infected fractures as well as for treatment of bone infections, antibiotic beads are frequently used.
The psychology supporting the use of quantifier words (e.g., “some,” “most,” “more”) is of interest to both scientists studying quantity representation (e.g., number, area) and to scientists and linguists studying the syntax and semantics of these terms. Understanding quantifiers requires both a mastery of the linguistic representations and a connection with cognitive representations of quantity. Some words (e.g., “many”) refer to only a single dimension, whereas others, like the comparative “more,” refer to comparison by numeric (“more dots”) or nonnumeric dimensions (“more goo”). In the present work, we ask 2 questions. First, when do children begin to understand the word “more” as used to compare nonnumeric substances and collections of discrete objects? Second, what is the underlying psychophysical character of the cognitive representations children utilize to verify such sentences? We find that children can understand and verify sentences including “more goo” and “more dots” at around 3.3 years—younger than some previous studies have suggested—and that children employ the Approximate Number System and an Approximate Area System in verification. These systems share a common underlying format (i.e., Gaussian representations with scalar variability). The similarity in the age of onset we find for understanding “more” in number and area contexts, along with the similar psychophysical character we demonstrate for these underlying cognitive representations, suggests that children may learn “more” as a domain-neutral comparative term.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.