文献精选
Allyson N. Hamilton1 · Sahaana Chandran1 · Christopher A. Baker1,2 · Kristen E. Gibson1
Received: 2 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 January 2023 / Published online: 21 January 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023
Abstract
Indirect contact with contaminated surfaces is a potential transmission route for COVID-19. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate convenient and inexpensive surface sanitization methods, such as HOCl, against severe acute respiratory syn-drome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The SARS-CoV-2 surrogate, Phi6 (~7 log PFU/mL), was prepared in artificial saliva and tripartite matrices, spot inoculated on coupons of either stainless steel or vinyl, and allowed to dry. The coupons were sprayed with either 500 ppm or 1000 ppm HOCl, and remained on the surface for 0 s (control), 5 s, 30 s, or 60 s. Samples were enumerated via the double agar overlay assay. Statistical analysis was completed in R using a generalized linear model with Quasipoisson error approximations. Time, concentration, surface type, and inoculum matrix were all significant contributors to log reduction at P=0.05. Significant three-way interactions were observed for 1000 ppm, vinyl, and 60 s (P=0.03) and 1000 ppm, tripartite, and 60 s (P=0.0121). A significant two-way interaction between vinyl and 60 s was also observed (P=0.0168). Overall, increased HOCl concentration and exposure time led to increased Phi6 reduction. Notably, the highest estimated mean log reduction was 3.31 (95% CI 3.14, 3.49) for stainless steel at 60 s and 1000 ppm HOCl in artificial saliva, indicating that this method of sanitization may not adequately reduce enveloped viruses to below infective thresholds.
Keywords Fomite · Phi6 · Hypochlorous acid · Vinyl · Stainless steel
Kyu-Il Lee1 , Yu-Kyeong Yun2 , Seung-Kyu Han2,3 , Kyung-Chul Moon2,3 , Sik Namgoong2,3 ,
Seong-Ho Jeong3 , Eun-Sang Dhong3
1Department of Plastic Surgery, Taean Public Health Office, Taean, Korea
2Diabetic Wound Center and Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University Guro Hospital, Seoul, Korea
3Department of Plastic Surgery, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
Abstract
Background: Adequate tissue oxygenation is a key determinant of diabetic foot ulcer (DFU) outcomes. Though transcutaneous oxygen pressure (TcPO2) is the gold standard for evaluating tissue oxygenation, its limited availability restricts routine clinical use. Consequently, toe pressure is frequently utilized as a practical surrogate; however, the direct correlation between these two modalities has yet to be rigorously investigated. This study aimed to assess the correlation and agreement between TcPO2and toe pressure in patients with DFUs.
Methods: A retrospective review was conducted on 837 DFU patients who received simultaneous TcPO2and toe pressure assessments.
The correlation between the two tests was analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient, and agreement was evaluated using Bland– Altman analysis. To aid interpretation, a scatterplot and Bland–Altman plot were generated.
Results: TcPO2and toe pressure demonstrated a strong correlation (R=0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.62 to 0.70; P<0.001). Bland–
Altman analysis showed a mean bias of 26.9 mmHg (standard deviation of differences, 28.8 mmHg; 95% limits of agreement, −28.9 to 82.6 mmHg) between toe pressure and TcPO2, reflecting limited agreement and increased variability at higher perfusion levels.
Conclusion: TcPO2and toe pressure are strongly correlated. However, they are not interchangeable, particularly in DFU patients with high tissue perfusion.
Keywords: Diabetic foot; Foot ulcer; Ischemia; Microcirculation




本文转载于J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2018;11(11):36–39,不代表本网站赞同其观点和对其真实性负责,我们只作于阅读分享,非商业用途,如若侵权,请告知删除。
Ewa A. BURIAN1, Lubna SABAH1, Klaus KIRKETERP-MØLLER1, Glenn GUNDERSEN2 and Magnus S. ÅGREN1,3,4
1Department of Dermatology and Copenhagen Wound Healing Center, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark,
2SoftOx Solutions AS, Oslo, Norway, 3Digestive Disease Center, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, and 4Department of Clinical
Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
