(Obstet Gynecol 2012;119:442-4) DOI:10.1097/AOG.0b013e318236f1a0″
“Sample preparation in forensic science offers special challenges in that the sample matrix and the analytes change depending on the circumstances of the case. It is difficult to standardize the sample preparation step for many types of cases due to sample and matrix complexity and the total unknown
nature of the target analytes present within the matrix. Secondly, the analytical results obtained from forensic samples often undergo rigorous legal scrutiny and challenges. As such, maintaining the integrity of the sample chain of custody should be considered during the sampling and sample preparation prior to analysis. Finally, for those sample matrices where the sample preparation can be standardized (i.e., fire debris analysis and toxicology), utmost care should be taken to minimize the possible interferents and maximize the analyte concentration to meet the analytical Small molecule library requirements.
In this article, we discuss the nature and the types of forensic samples of interest, and recent developments and innovations in micro-sample preparation techniques in different disciplines within forensic science. We also discuss the future outlook of forensic sample preparation. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“To determine the difference in sternal infection
and other infectious LDN-193189 chemical structure events between conventional wire and cable-tie-based closure techniques post-sternotomy in a collective of patients after cardiac surgery.
The sternal ZipFix (TM) (ZF) system consists of a biocompatible poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) Barasertib cable-tie that surrounds the sternum through the intercostal space and provides a large implant-to-bone contact. Between 1 February 2011 and 31 January 2012, 680 cardiac operations were performed via sternotomy at our institution. After the exclusion of operations for active endocarditis and early mortality within 7 days, 95 patients were exclusively closed with ZF and could be compared with 498 who were closed with conventional wires
(CWs) during the same period. A multivariable logistic regression analysis, including body mass index, renal impairment and emergency as suspected confounders and inverse propensity weights was performed on the infection rate.
Total infection rate was 6.1%, with a total of 36 diagnosed sternal infections (5 in ZF and 31 in CW). Comparing ZF with CW with regard to sternal infection, there is no statistically significant difference related to the device (odds ratio: 0.067, confidence interval: 0.04-9.16, P = 0.72). The propensity modelling provided excellent overlap and the mean propensity was almost the same in both groups. Thus, we have observed no difference in receiving either ZF or CW. No sternal instability was observed with the ZF device, unlike 4/31 patients in the CW group.