Objective To summarize the clinical features of mercury poisoning diagnosed by blood and urine tests for improving the diagnosis and treatment of the disease.Methods Poisoning causes,clinical manifestations,diagnosis,treatment and prognosis were retrospectively reviewed in 92 in-patients with mercury poisoning in our hospital from January 2000 to April 2010.Results Of the 92 patients,37 were male and 55 were female with an average age of 33.1(2-65)years old.The mercury poisoning was caused by occupational exposure and non-occupational exposure,such as iatrogenic exposure,life exposure and wrong intake or suicidal intake of mercury-containing substances,mainly through respiratory tract,digestive tract and skin absorption.The most common clinical symptoms were as the followings:nervous system symptom,such as memory loss in 50 eases(54.3%),fatigue in 34(37.0%),numb limb in 25 (27.2%),dizziness and headache in 22(23.9%),cacesthesia in 20(21.7%),fine tremor(finger tip,tongue tip,eyelids)in 15(16.3%),insomnia and more dreams in 12(13.0%);gastrointestinal symptoms:nausea in 16 (17.4%),abdominal pain in 14(15.2%),stomatitis in 5(5.4%);joint and muscle symptoms:muscle pain in 16(17.4%),joint pain in 5(5.4%);cardiovaseular system:chest tightness,hean palpitations in 6(6.5%);urinary system:edema in 9(9.8%);other system:hidrosis in 20(21.7%).After the treatment with sodium dimercaptopropane sulfonate (DMPS),the symptoms were gradually alleviated.Their gastrointestinal,cardiovascular symptoms were alleviated within 2 weeks;neurological symptoms were alleviated within 3 months;kidney damage showed a slower recovery and could be completely'alleviated within 6 months.Conclusions Because of its diverse clinical symptoms,the mercury poisoning was easy to misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis:therefore the awareness of the disease should be further enhanced.Leaving from the poisoning environment timely and giving appropriate treatment with DMPS will lead to a satisfactory prognosis.

Objective To investigate the effect of rosiglitazone (RGTZ) on anti-oxidation in aging rat kidney. Methods Twenty-four-month-old male Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into three groups (n=10): control group (CON), rosiglitazone group (RGTZ) and caloric restriction group (CR). The CON rats were allowed ad libitum access to feed and tap water.The RGTZ rats received intragastric administration of RGTZ (4 mg·kg-1·d-1),and the CR rats were provided with a vitamin and mineral fortified version of the same diet at a level of 40% less food (by weight) than the CON rats. After 12 weeks all the animals were sacrificed by decapitation, and both the body weight and the percentage of kidney and heart in each group were measured.Western blot was performed to analyze the expression of PPARγ protein. The content of MDA and the activity of SOD and GSH-PX in kidney tissue were detected. Besides, frozen sections of kidney tissue were stained for senescence-associated-13 galactosidase (SA-β-Gal). Results The body weight of CR rats decreased obviously, in contrast, which did not change in CON and RGTZ group. Percentage of kidney and heart to body weight was normal in CR or RGTZ group after intervention. Western blot result showed that PPARγ protein expression in rat kidney was significantly higher in RGTZ and CR group as compared to CON group (P<0.05). Compared with RGTZ and CR rats, obviously lower activities of SOD and GSH-Px were noted in CON rats, however, the content of MDA was higher in CON rats. Additionally, the positive staining area of [3-Gal in CR and RGTZ group was significantly smaller than that in CON rats (P<0.05, P<0.01 ). Conclusion RGTZ can defer the kidney aging in senescence SD rat, and the mechanism may be related to amelioration of oxidative damage and enhancement of antioxidation.

Objective To observe the month age distribution of peroxisome proliferators activated receptor gamma (PPARγ) expression in rat kedney. Methods Wistar rats aged 3 months,12 months and 24 months were made as models who represented young, middle-aged and old group respectively. Western blotting, immunohistochemical (IHC) and in-situ hybridization (ISH) were used to detect the expression and location of protein and mRNA of PPARγ in rat kidney. Results Western blotting results showed that the expression of PPARγ protein was higher in 3 months group than in 24 months group (0.94±0.05 vs. 0.78±0.02, P＜0.01) and 12 months group (0.87±0.04, P＞0.05), and it reduced in 24 months group than in 12 months group (P＞0.05). By IHC,the PPARγ protein was localized predominantly in the nuclear of tubular epithelia and collecting duct cells in each group. In old age group, PPARγ protein was also detected little in the mesangial and Bowman's capsule epithelial cells. Meanwhile, the distribution of PPARγ mRNA with ISH was consistent with above findings. Additional, semi-quantitative analysis of ISH results verified that the level of PPARγ mRNA decreased with ageing. Conclusions As a nuclear transcription factor,PPARγ participates in the regulation of rat kidney aging.

Objective:To investigate the clinical efficacy of radical resection of rectal cancer with different surgical approaches and influencing factors of postoperative complications.Methods:The retrospective study was conducted. The clinicopathological data of 3 418 patients who underwent radical resection of rectal cancer in the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from July 2011 to September 2020 were collected. There were 2 060 males and 1 358 females, aged (61±11)years. Patients meeting the requirements of radical resection and surgical indications underwent surgeries choosing from open radical colorectal cancer surgery, laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery, and natural orifice specimen extraction surgery (NOSES). Observation indicators: (1) intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (2) comparison of preoperative clinical characteristics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (3) comparison of postoperative histopathological characteristics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (4) postoperative complications of patients undergoing different surgical approaches; (5) analysis of influencing factors of postoperative complications. Measurement data with normal distribution were represented as Mean± SD. Measurement data with skewed distribution were represented as M(range), and comparisons between groups was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis rank test. Comparison of ordinal data was analyzed using the non-parameter rank sum test. Count data were described as absolute numbers or percentages, and comparison between groups was analyzed using the chi-square test. Multivariate analysis was conducted using the Logistic regression model. Results:(1) Intraoperative and postoperative conditions of patients undergoing different surgical approaches. Of the 3 418 patients, 1 978 cases underwent open radical colorectal cancer sur-gery, 1 028 cases underwent laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and 412 cases underwent NOSES, respectively. The operation time, volume of intraoperative blood loss, cases with permanent stoma, preventive stoma or without fistula, time to postoperative first flatus, time to postoperative liquid food intake, cases transferred to intensive care unit after surgery, duration of postoperative hospital stay were 145(range, 55?460)minutes, 100(range, 30?1 000)mL, 435, 88, 1 455, 72(range, 10?220)hours, 96(range, 16?296)hours, 158, 10(range, 6?60)days, respectively, in patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery. The above indicators were 175(range, 80?450)minutes, 50(range, 10?800)mL, 172, 112, 744, 48(range, 14?120)hours, 72(range, 38?140)hours, 17, 9(range, 4?40)days, respectively, in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and 180(range, 80?400)minutes, 30(range, 5?500)mL, 0, 45, 367, 48 (range, 14?144)hours, 72(range, 15?148)hours, 1, 6(range, 3?30)days, respectively, in patients undergoing NOSES. There were significant differences in the above indicators among the patients undergoing different surgical approaches ( H=291.38, 518.56, χ2=153.82, H=408.86, 282.97, χ2=78.66, H=332.30, P<0.05). (2) Com-parison of preoperative clinical characteristics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches. The gender, age, body mass index, cases with diabetes, cases with hypertension, cases with coronary heart disease, cases with anemia, cases with hypoproteinemia, cases with intestinal obstruction, tumor location, preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen, preoperative CA19-9 showed significant differences among patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery, laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES ( P<0.05). (3) Comparison of postoperative histopathological characteris-tics in patients undergoing different surgical approaches. Tumor histological type, tumor differentiation degree, tumor diameter, number of lymph node detected, nerve invasion, vascular invasion, lymph node invasion, tumor T staging, tumor N staging, tumor M staging, tumor TNM staging showed significant differences among patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery, laparos-copic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES ( P<0.05). (4) Postoperative complications of patients undergoing different surgical approaches. Cases with postoperative complications as anastomotic leakage, abdominal infection, intestinal obstruction, anastomotic bleeding, incision complications, pulmonary infection, other complications were 52, 21, 309, 8, 130, 51, 59, respectively, in patients undergoing open radical colorectal cancer surgery. The above indicators were 33, 17, 75, 3, 45, 58, 9, respectively, in patients undergoing laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and 13, 4, 8, 0, 11, 10, 15, respectively, in patients undergoing NOSES. There were significant differences in the intes-tinal obstruction, incision complications, pulmonary infection, other complications among patients undergoing different surgical approaches ( χ2=122.56, 13.33, 20.44, 15.59, P<0.05) and there was no significant difference in the anastomotic leakage, abdominal infection, anastomotic bleeding among patients undergoing different surgical approaches ( χ2=0.96, 2.21, 3.08, P>0.05). (5) Analysis of influencing factors of postoperative complications. ① Analysis of influencing factors of intestinal obstruction in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. Age as 20?39 years and 40?59 years, surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES were independent protective factors of intestinal obstruction in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=0.46, 0.59, 0.43, 0.13, 95% confidence interval as 0.21?1.00, 0.36?0.96, 0.33?0.56, 0.06?0.27, P<0.05). ② Analysis of influencing factors of incision complications in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. Body mass index as 24.0?26.9 kg/m 2, surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES were independent protective factors of incision complications in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=0.24, 0.63, 0.46, 95% confidence interval as 0.11?0.51, 0.44?0.89, 0.24?0.87, P<0.05). ③ Analysis of influencing factors of pulmonary infection in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. The surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery was an independent risk factor of pulmonary infection in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=2.15, 95% confidence interval as 1.46?3.18, P<0.05), and tumor TNM staging as 0?Ⅰ stage was an independent protective factor ( odds ratio=0.10, 95% confidence interval as 0.01?0.88, P<0.05). ④ Analysis of influencing factors of other complica-tions in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer. Age as 20?39 years, 40?59 years, 60?79 years, body mass index as <18.5 kg/m 2, 18.5?23.9 kg/m 2, 24.0?26.9 kg/m 2, 27.0?29.9 kg/m 2, surgical approach as laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery were independent protective factors of other complications in patients with radical resection of rectal cancer ( odds ratio=0.10, 0.29, 0.37, 0.08, 0.22, 0.35, 0.32, 0.29, 95% confidence interval as 0.01?0.81, 0.13?0.64, 0.17?0.78, 0.02?0.40, 0.09?0.52, 0.15?0.83, 0.12?0.89, 0.14?0.59, P<0.05). Conclusions:Compared to laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES, open radical colorectal cancer surgery has wide indication and short operation time, but less perioperative treatment effect. Laparoscopic radical colorectal cancer surgery and NOSES can achieve better surgical result and less postoperative complication when patients meeting surgical indications.