• Pediatric Infection and Vaccine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.31-39
• /
• 2011

Purpose : This study was performed for the purpose of finding causative organisms and clinical features of septic arthritis or acute osteomyelitis in children. Methods : The study involved a retrospective review of the medical records of 63 microbiologically confirmed cases of acute pyogenic arthritis and osteomyelitis. All of the cases were brought about by community-associated infections and managed at the Seoul National University Children's Hospital or Seoul National University Bundang Hospital from June 2003 to July 2009. Results : The median age of all cases was 60 months and there were 35 males and 28 females. Major involved joints included the hip joint (15 cases), knee joint (7 cases), shoulder joint (4 cases), and elbow joint (4 cases). Also, major involved bones included the femur (20 cases), tibia (13 cases), humerus (7 cases), and radius (7 cases). Staphylococcus aureus was the most commonly identified causative organism, accounting for 49 cases (77.8%). Of the 49 isolates of S. aureus, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) accounted for 8 cases (16.3%). Group B streptococcus spp. (GBS) and Salmonella spp. accounted for 3 cases, respectively. Nafcillin or cefazolin was often prescribed as an initial empirical antibiotic. There were 9 cases that were managed by a regimen that included vancomycin as the first choice. Fifty four cases (85.7%) recovered without any complications. Methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (MSSA), responsible for 41 cases, caused chronic complications in 3 cases. Of 8 cases caused by MRSA, 1 case showed chronic complication. There were no fatal cases. Conclusion : S. aureus remains the most common organism causing acute pyogenic arthritis and osteomyelitis of childhood acquired in the community. The high prevalence of methicillin resistance among S. aureus should be considered carefully in the selection of initial empirical antibiotics.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.3-39
• /
• 2011

People may operate unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or drones) thousands of miles from the drone's location. Drones were first used (like balloons) for surveillance. By 2001, the United States began arming drones with missiles and using them to strike targets during combat in Afghanistan. By mid-2010, over forty states and other entities possessed drones, many with the capability of launching missiles and dropping bombs. Each new development in military weapons technology invites assessment of the relevant international law. This Insight surveys the international law applicable to the recent innovation of weaponizing drones. In determining what international law rules govern drone use, the most salient feature is not the fact that drones are unmanned. The fact drones carry no human operator may be the most important new technological breakthrough, but the key feature for international law purposes is the type of weaponry drones carry. Whether law enforcement rules govern drone use depends on the situation and not necessarily who is operating the drone. Battlefield weapons may also be lawfully used before an armed conflict in the following situations: when initiating self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter; when authorized by the UN Security Council; when a government seeks to suppress internal armed conflict; and, perhaps, when a state is invited to assist a government in suppressing internal armed conflict. The rules governing resort to force in self-defense are found in Article 51 of the UN Charter and a number of decisions by international courts and tribunals. Commentators continue to debate whether drone technology represents the next revolution in military affairs. Regardless of the answer to that question, drones have not created a revolution in legal affairs. The current rules governing battlefield launch vehicles are adequate for regulating resort to drones. More research must be undertaken, however, to understand the psychological effects of deploying unmanned vehicles and the effects on drone operators of sustained, close visual contact with the aftermath of drone attacks.