ABSTRACT
The EEG was evaluated in three cases of hydranencephaly and two cases of maximal hydrocephalus, and the visual evoked potential was studied in one case each of hydranencephaly and maximal hydrocephalus. The EEG tracing of hydranencephaly typically showed a flat pattern in most bipolar derivations because of the differential amplification of the same activity from remote generators. However, the EEG of maximal hydrocephalus did not demonstrate a flat pattern in bipolar as well as referential derivation, and the activities were different from various electrodes in referential derivation. The visual evoked potential of maximal hydrocephalus showed a normal pattern, while that of hydranencephaly showed no response. Electrophysiological examinations (such as EEG and visual evoked potential) are useful for differentiation of hydranencephaly and maximal hydrocephalus in cases whose computed tomographic scans do not provide clear differentiation.
Subject(s)
Anencephaly/diagnosis , Electroencephalography , Hydranencephaly/diagnosis , Hydrocephalus/diagnosis , Cerebral Cortex/physiopathology , Diagnosis, Differential , Evoked Potentials , Female , Humans , Hydranencephaly/physiopathology , Hydrocephalus/physiopathology , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Male , Tomography, X-Ray ComputedABSTRACT
Between December 1984 and December 1986, a microplate technique was adopted for isolation of viruses from infants and children with acute respiratory infections. By using two kinds of tissue culture microplates, i.e., the HHVM plate, containing human embryonic fibroblast (HEF), HEp-2, Vero and MDCK cells, and the MK plate which contains secondary monkey kidney cells, 1,080 field viruses were isolated from 1,061 (24.9%) out of 4,254 throat swabs. Of these 1,080 isolates, 1,003 (92.9%) were recovered in the HHVM plates and the remaining 77 (7.1%) in the MK plates. With the HHVM plate, influenza A and B viruses were cultivated in MDCK, RS virus in HEp-2, parainfluenza and mumps viruses in Vero, adenoviruses in both HEF and HEp-2, polioviruses in HEF, HEp-2 and Vero, coxsackie B viruses in both HEp-2 and Vero, rhino and echo viruses in HEF, herpes simplex virus in both HEF and HEp-2, and cytomegalovirus in HEF, although MK were more sensitive than Vero to parainfluenza and coxsackie B viruses. There was no difference in the rate of isolation of viruses between the microplate and ordinary tube methods. Cross contamination in the microplates was negligible for routine work.
