Search

Abstract C-glycosides are significant in medicinal chemistry due to their resistance to enzymatic hydrolysis, making them more stable and bioavailable compared to O-glycosides. Their unique structure also offers potential for developing drugs with improved therapeutic properties, particularly in treating diseases like diabetes and cancer. The main challenge in synthesizing C-glycosides lies in forming the carbon-carbon bond between the sugar and aglycone efficiently, while controlling the stereochemistry and minimizing side reactions. Starting from glycal derivatives, the Zweifel olefination presents an elegant opportunity to access C-glycosides in a selective manner. α-Lithiation of D-glucal, L-rhamnal, D-xylal and L-arabinal scaffolds was employed as a starting point in the synthesis of corresponding unsaturated aryl-, heteroaryl- and alkenyl-C-glycosides. This provides a straightforward strategy towards pharmacorelevant gliflozins and other unreported rhamnal- and xylal-analogs.

IntroductionSurgical lighting systems have to be re-adjusted manually during surgery by the medical personnel. While some authors suggest that interaction with a surgical lighting system in the operating room might be a distractor, others support the idea that manual interaction with the surgical lighting system is a hygiene problem as pathogens might be present on the handle. In any case, it seems desirable to develop a novel approach to surgical lighting that minimizes the need for manual interaction during a surgical procedure.MethodesWe investigated the effect of manual interaction with a classical surgical lighting system and simulated a proposed novel design of a surgical lighting system in a virtual reality environment with respect to performance accuracy as well as cognitive load (measured by electroencephalographical recordings).ResultsWe found that manual interaction with the surgical lights has no effect on the quality of performance, yet for the price of a higher mental effort, possibly leading to faster fatigue of the medical personnel in the long run.DiscussionOur proposed novel surgical lighting system negates the need for manual interaction and leads to a performance quality comparable to the classical lighting system, yet with less mental load for the surgical personnel.

BackgroundOsteosarcomas are the most common primary bone tumor while occurrence in the craniofacial skeleton is relatively rare. There are clinical differences of osteosarcomas regarding their location. In this regard craniofacial osteosarcomas (COS) have special characteristics. Extracranial osteosarcomas (EOS) occur mainly in the long bones of the extremities (tibia, humerus and femur). These tumors metastasize hematogenically at a very early stage. In comparison, COS are mainly localized in the mandible and maxilla, occur later in life and show significantly less and later metastasis and respond differently to adjuvant therapy. In the literature, clinical characteristics of COS and EOS are rarely compared directly. The aim of this systematic review is to answer the question whether COS and EOS exhibit fundamentally different clinical behavior and how they differ in terms of survival rates and response to different therapies.MethodsA systemic review was performed. Pubmed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used as search engines. The literature research was done by using clearly defined terms and their links. 124 full texts were selected and evaluated for this review. The inclusion criteria were determined using the PICO model.ResultsCOS have significantly better survival rates, especially if they are located in the jawbone. Surgical R0 resection is crucial for therapeutic success. The study situation regarding the benefit of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in COS is very inhomogeneous. There is also no evidence for the benefit of adjuvant radio- or chemotherapy in COS. The large heterogeneity of the studies in terms of therapeutic concept, initial situation of the patients and outcome considered, as well as the small number of patients with craniofacial osteosarcoma were limiting factors.ConclusionThe results of this study show the clear therapeutic and prognostic differences between COS and EOS and underline the necessity to consider both types of osteosarcoma as independent tumor entities in future studies. Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of surgical R0 resection for the prognosis of COS patients. There is no evidence for therapeutic benefit of adjuvant/neoadjuvant radio-/chemotherapy in R0 resected COS cases.