Primary enuresis

Worldwide, about 10% of children (aged 6-7 years old) suffer from bedwetting; in other words, this condition is widespread but the impact is often underestimated. The training of family doctors very rarely included guidance with specific recommendations, the frequent approach being the expectation of spontaneous resolution. The purpose of this paper is to provide the family doctor, who takes care of the child, with a guideline in the management of nocturnal enuresis. Materials and method. The systematic review of existing practice guides and literature, articles and studies published between 2001 and 2021 (PubMed, Cochrane, BMJ, Elsevier, JAMA Network, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Springer Nature, Wiley), on primary nocturnal enuresis, led to the creation of a material that was the basis of this article. Discussion and conclusions. The initial assessment should include history, physical examination and urinalysis. Se­ve­ral conditions associated with enuresis need to be identified, evaluated and treated: constipation, obstructive sleep apnea, diabetes, diabetes insipidus, chronic kidney disease and psychiatric disorders. Treatment begins with counseling the child and parents about effective behavioral changes. First-line treatment includes bedside alarm therapy and desmopressin. The choice of therapy is based on the age of the child, the patterns of emptying at night and the wishes of the child and family. The recommendation to a pediatrician expert in the field is indicated for children with primary enuresis refractory to standard and combination therapies, as well as for children with some secondary cau­ses of enuresis, including urinary tract malformations, recurrent urinary tract infections or neurological disorders.

Nuclear magnetic resonance: actualities and perspectives

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) is a complex physical process based on the interaction of protons in an electro­mag­ne­tic field, the most well-known and widespread ap­pli­cation in medical-clinical and medical-surgical field being nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Considering the interdependent relationship between research in scien­ti­fic fields that are closely related to medicine and the me­di­cal world, it is particularly important to be aware of the existence of other applications of the physical process men­tioned before: diffusionometry, relaxometry and MRI spectroscopy. These are well-known and studied research entities, but their applicability in the clinical diagnostic pro­cess is still limited, despite the huge potential to provide a much broader and more detailed perspective on various biological tissues in vitro, but even in vivo. We want to re­view the evolution of nuclear magnetic resonance to­mo­gra­phy or imaging, which has gone from being a Nobel Prize-winning idea to one of the most widespread and useful methods of non-invasive and non-irradiating me­di­cal imaging, but especially an example of the feasi­bi­li­ty of diffusionometry, relaxometry, respectively MRI spec­tro­scopy in a medical setting, through global studies on their po­ten­tial diagnosis in areas such as oncology, neurology, en­do­cri­no­logy and others.

Adverse reactions following Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine among ”Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia” Clinical Psychiatry Hospital medical staff

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, health organizations and medical scientists worked hard to develop a vaccine that can protect against COVID-19. Given the increased interest of the general population in the side effects occurring after being vaccinated, the aim of this study is to illustrate their frequency and their sub­jec­tive intensity. The ”Prof. Dr. Alexandru Obregia” Cli­ni­cal Psy­chia­try Hospital medical staff members who re­ceived the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine between January 2021 and March 2021 were questioned about the ad­verse reactions after the first and the second dose. The ques­tion­naires were anonymous. A total of 201 persons answered the ques­tion­naire after the first vaccine dose, and 150 persons answered after the second shot. 91% of the respondents experienced at least one local reaction at the injection site after the first dose, compared to 87.33% after the second dose. The most frequent local reactions were represented by pain at the site of injection and difficulty moving the arm. Systemic reactions were more frequently reported after booster shot, compared to the first dose (p=0.002): 49.8% of the subjects had systemic reactions after the first dose, while 66.7% experienced them after the second one. The most frequently reported systemic reactions were drowsiness, fatigue, myalgia, headache, low-grade fever and chills. The intensity of adverse effects was mild to moderate, with 72% of the subjects considering the intensity of adverse reactions after the second shot as being greater than after the first shot. No anaphylactic reactions or other complications or severe side effects were mentioned in the analyzed group.