\n\nIt is possible to visualize the fossa ovalis on pre-ablation CT and localize the transseptal needle accurately within the margins of

the fossa ovalis utilizing EnSite Fusion (TM) and Verismo (TM) software.”
“Purpose: There are controversial reports regarding the long-term intraocular pressure (IOP) lowering effect of non-penetrating glaucoma surgery (NPGS). The reported complete success rates from studies in different populations around the world are 13% to 77%. Bafilomycin A1 inhibitor This prospective study was aimed to evaluate the IOP lowering effect of deep sclerectomy with Mitomycin C (DSMMC) in a group of Iranian patients with open angle glaucoma.\n\nMethods: Ninety eyes of 87 patients with medically uncontrolled primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study and were surgically treated by DSMMC. All patients had complete eye examination before and at regular intervals after the operation. Surgical success was considered for IOP of <= 21 mmHg.\n\nResults: The mean age was 64 +/- 12 years; the mean follow-up was 33 +/- 22 months. The mean preoperative IOP of 42 +/- 13 mmHg was significantly decreased to the mean final IOP of 22 +/- 11 mmHg (P<0.001). The IOP lowering effect of surgery reduced this website by time (P<0.001). Cystic bleb was developed in 13.3% of eyes. The

probability for an IOP <= 21 mmHg was 35% without the use of antiglaucoma drops and 71% with or without the use of antiglaucoma drops.\n\nConclusion: DSMMC could effectively reduce IOP in eyes with POAG and was accompanied by few operative complications. Most of the patients needed to continue using antiglaucoma drops after the operation. This procedure is not fair whenever low target IOPs are required.”
“Many

jurisdictions require cyclists to wear bicycle helmets. The UK is currently not one of these. However, an increasing number of interest groups, including the British Medical Association, want to change the status quo. They argue that mandatory cycle helmet laws will reduce the incidence of head injuries and that this will be both good for cyclists (because they will suffer fewer head injuries) and good for society (because the burden of having to treat cyclists suffering from head injuries will be reduced). In LCL161 this paper we argue against this position. We suggest that cycle helmets may not be especially effective in reducing head injuries and we suggest that the imposition of such a restrictive law would violate people’s freedom and reduce their autonomy. We also argue that those who accept such a restrictive law would be committed to supporting further legislation which would force many other groups – including pedestrians – to take fewer risks with their health. We conclude that cycle helmet legislation should not be enacted in the UK unless, perhaps, it is restricted to children.