This article purports to shed light on some thoughts on China’s legislative reform in respect of rules pertaining to regulate the multimodal transportation involving a sea leg. While the section of multimodal transpo...This article purports to shed light on some thoughts on China’s legislative reform in respect of rules pertaining to regulate the multimodal transportation involving a sea leg. While the section of multimodal transportation in the Chinese Maritime Code has not been much challenged in the legal practice, the recent Rotterdam Rules that deals with contracts of carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea certainly probes the area with new solutions. These new solutions have enlightened the debates among the scholars and practitioners over the routes for the reform of the wet multimodal transport provisions in the Code. In this article, the author attempts to assess the Rotterdam Rules solutions in connection with the characteristics of Chinese import and export trades that involve multimodal transportation as well as the relevant domestic legislation and international treaties to which China has entered into as member state that regulate transport of goods by modes other than sea. Based on the analysis, it finds out that some of the former solutions may give rise to unexpected results that hinder their adoption in the future Code : it could narrow the existing scope of application of the Chinese Maritime Code and would let the multimodal transport operators escape the mandatory regime of the Code.And if provision like the Art.26 of the Rotterdam Rules is adopted in the Code, a great market difference might be created as between the fragmented transportation under various contracts and the multimodal transportation under a single contract. However,certain rules are positive so that can be adopted in the future Code: the hypothetical contract approach adopted in the Art. 26 of the Rotterdam, Rules and the gap-filling approach adopted in the Arts. 26 and 82 of the Rules may provide better certainties in respect of issues such as time for suit, liability for delay, transport documents.Moreover, Chinese legislators may consider to extend the multimodal liability regime to the independent contractors or subcontractors of 展开更多
目的探讨腰椎侧方入路融合术(OLIF)联合椎弓根钉棒固定(Wiltse入路)置入治疗腰椎滑脱症(LS)的临床疗效。方法2017年1月至2020年7月江苏省连云港市灌云县人民医院骨科收治的腰椎滑脱症患者27例,在正常L3~S1节段CT扫描的基础上采用OLIF联...目的探讨腰椎侧方入路融合术(OLIF)联合椎弓根钉棒固定(Wiltse入路)置入治疗腰椎滑脱症(LS)的临床疗效。方法2017年1月至2020年7月江苏省连云港市灌云县人民医院骨科收治的腰椎滑脱症患者27例,在正常L3~S1节段CT扫描的基础上采用OLIF联合Wiltse入路的方法,设为观察组;同时以单纯小切口Wiltse入路椎弓根螺钉固定术治疗的27例患者作为对照组。比较两组手术时间、暴露时间、显露出血量及总出血量、日本骨科协会评估治疗评分(JOA)、腰疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)改善率。设定责任节段,建造OLIF Stand alone(M1)模型、OLIF+左侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M2)和OLIF+双侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M3)。比较3种模型脊椎前屈、后伸、侧屈及旋转等生理活动下不同节段的相对活动度、逐渐融合期和椎弓根钉棒应力分布差异。结果相较于OLIF Stand alone(M1)模型而言,采用OLIF+左侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M2)和OLIF+双侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M3)对腰椎滑脱症的临床治疗效果更好。OLIF联合小切口Wiltse入路术的手术时间、暴露时间、显露出血量及总出血量指标均低于常规治疗组(P<0.05),联合组的JOA改善率,腰痛VAS评分分均优于常规治疗组(P<0.05)。结论OLIF联合Wiltse入路在腰椎滑脱症的临床治疗中临床效果更好,可给腰椎间融合固定节段提供足够的椎间稳定性。展开更多
文摘This article purports to shed light on some thoughts on China’s legislative reform in respect of rules pertaining to regulate the multimodal transportation involving a sea leg. While the section of multimodal transportation in the Chinese Maritime Code has not been much challenged in the legal practice, the recent Rotterdam Rules that deals with contracts of carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea certainly probes the area with new solutions. These new solutions have enlightened the debates among the scholars and practitioners over the routes for the reform of the wet multimodal transport provisions in the Code. In this article, the author attempts to assess the Rotterdam Rules solutions in connection with the characteristics of Chinese import and export trades that involve multimodal transportation as well as the relevant domestic legislation and international treaties to which China has entered into as member state that regulate transport of goods by modes other than sea. Based on the analysis, it finds out that some of the former solutions may give rise to unexpected results that hinder their adoption in the future Code : it could narrow the existing scope of application of the Chinese Maritime Code and would let the multimodal transport operators escape the mandatory regime of the Code.And if provision like the Art.26 of the Rotterdam Rules is adopted in the Code, a great market difference might be created as between the fragmented transportation under various contracts and the multimodal transportation under a single contract. However,certain rules are positive so that can be adopted in the future Code: the hypothetical contract approach adopted in the Art. 26 of the Rotterdam, Rules and the gap-filling approach adopted in the Arts. 26 and 82 of the Rules may provide better certainties in respect of issues such as time for suit, liability for delay, transport documents.Moreover, Chinese legislators may consider to extend the multimodal liability regime to the independent contractors or subcontractors of
文摘目的探讨腰椎侧方入路融合术(OLIF)联合椎弓根钉棒固定(Wiltse入路)置入治疗腰椎滑脱症(LS)的临床疗效。方法2017年1月至2020年7月江苏省连云港市灌云县人民医院骨科收治的腰椎滑脱症患者27例,在正常L3~S1节段CT扫描的基础上采用OLIF联合Wiltse入路的方法,设为观察组;同时以单纯小切口Wiltse入路椎弓根螺钉固定术治疗的27例患者作为对照组。比较两组手术时间、暴露时间、显露出血量及总出血量、日本骨科协会评估治疗评分(JOA)、腰疼痛视觉模拟评分(VAS)改善率。设定责任节段,建造OLIF Stand alone(M1)模型、OLIF+左侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M2)和OLIF+双侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M3)。比较3种模型脊椎前屈、后伸、侧屈及旋转等生理活动下不同节段的相对活动度、逐渐融合期和椎弓根钉棒应力分布差异。结果相较于OLIF Stand alone(M1)模型而言,采用OLIF+左侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M2)和OLIF+双侧椎弓根钉棒固定模型(M3)对腰椎滑脱症的临床治疗效果更好。OLIF联合小切口Wiltse入路术的手术时间、暴露时间、显露出血量及总出血量指标均低于常规治疗组(P<0.05),联合组的JOA改善率,腰痛VAS评分分均优于常规治疗组(P<0.05)。结论OLIF联合Wiltse入路在腰椎滑脱症的临床治疗中临床效果更好,可给腰椎间融合固定节段提供足够的椎间稳定性。
