In this study,we summarized airway management of a series of patients with inhalation injury caused by smoke from smoke pot based on grade classification,which were:establishment of a special team for these classified patients,classifying the patients into four sub-groups including extremely severe,severe,moderate and mild,establishment of a program for trachea management and relevant measures on these classified sub-groups.Key points of management on extremely severe patients were as follows:protective isolation,mechanical ventilation,nursing of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and pneumothorax and mediastinal emphysema,prevention of tracheo-esophgeal fistula,nursing cooperation of fiberoptic bronchoscopy.Key points of management on severe patients were as follows:disinfection and isolation,rational oxygen therapy,sputum elimination management,observation of illness status,preparation of emergency treatment,prevention and nursing of complications.Key points of management on moderate patients were as follows:ventilation,oxygen uptake,aerosol inhalation,sputum elimination guidance,respiratory function training.For mild patients,there was no special management except ventilation,aerosol inhalation and regular pulmonary function examination.One patient died due to multiple organ failure complicated with massive hemoptysis,four patients recovered with airway scar proliferation and lung fibrosis,and fifty-five patients fully recovered.

Objective To evaluate the diagnostic procedures and treatment choice of primary malignant tumor of the duodenum.Methods The clinical data of 54 cases with primary malignant tumor of the duodenum at Peking University People's Hospital from 1995 to 2005 were analyzed retrospectively.Resuits Tumors located in the first,second,third and fourth parts in 6 cases(10%),44 cases(82%),2 cases(4%),and 2 cases(4%)respectively,and among them,tumors within papillary area accounted for 86%(38 cases)of all cases.Fifty cases(92%)were of adenocarcinoma,2 cases(4%)of mucinous adenoearcinoma carcinoid and undifferentiated carcinoma for 1 case each(2%)respectively.The main clinical presentations included jaundice,upper abdominal pain,weight loss,abdominal distention,nausea and vomiting.gastrointestinal obstruction and abdominal mass.The accuracy rate of duodenoscopy and ERCP in preoperative diagnosis was 94%,and 78%respectively.Preoperative associated cholecystopathy accounted for 37%.Panceaticoduodenectomy was performed in 38 cases,duodenectonmy in 1 ease,palliative resection of tumor in 9 cases,and tumor was inoperable in 6 cases.Resection rate was 89%,and radical resection rate was 72%.The postoperative 3-and 5-year survival rate was 41%and 22%respectively.Patients after palliative resection died from 3 months to 24 months and all patients who did not undergo a surgery died within 6 months.Conclusions Tumors located in papillary region account for the majority of primary malignant tumors of the duodenum and are mainly of adenocarcinoma.Specific signs on abdominal examination are few.The symptoms of advanced stage are complicated,associated cholecystopathy is relatively frequent.Endoscopy and ERCP examination are the main diagnostic tools.the pancreatoduodenectomy is the first choice of therapy for patients with primary duodenal carcinoma.

Objective To investigate whether two-dimension speckle tracking imaging(2D-STI) and ICAM-1-targeted myocardial contrast echocardiography could detect the acute cellular rejection of heart transplantation at the early stage.Methods The abdominal heterotopic heart transplantation model was successfully established using Wistar and SD rats.Forty-eight rats were divided into allografts (ALLO) group (n =24) and isografts(ISO) group (n =24).Echocardiography,2D-STI and ICAM-1 targeted myocardial contrast echocardiography were performed at 1,3,5 day after transplantation respectively.After ultrasound imaging,transplanted hearts were harvested for Hematoxylin-eosin staining and immunofluorescence histochemistry to evaluate acute cellular rejection and ICAM-1 expression.Results There were obvious difference between ALLO group and ISO group in echocardiographic parameters at 5 days after transplantation surgery (all P ＜0.05).Compared with those in ISO group,global circumferential strain and strain rate (GCS,GCSr),and circumferential strain of endo-myocardium (CSendo) decreased in ALLO group at day 3 post-transplantation (all P＜0.05).Compared with those in ISO group,all strain parameters in ALLO decreased significantly at postoperative day 5 (all P＜ 0.05).Myocardial contrast echocardiography using ICAM-1-targeted microbubbles showed that the video intensity in ALLO group was significant higher than that in ISO group at postoperative day 3 and day 5 (all P＜0.05).Conclusions 2D-STI and myocardial contrast echocardiography using ICAM-1-targeted microbubbles are sensitive and useful for detecting heart transplant acute rejection at the early stage.

Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) is a imaging manifestation of cerebral small vessel disease. At present, more and more opinions believe that vascular endothelial injury plays an important role in the pathogenesis of CMBs. The destruction of the blood-brain barrier and inflammatory response caused by vascular endothelial dysfunction may promote the occurrence and development of CMBs. At the same time, the deposition of hemosiderin around the lesion of CMBs may also trigger an inflammatory response. However, the relevant mechanisms and causality have not yet been fully elucidated. This article reviews the vascular endothelial inflammatory factors related to CMBs and their mechanism in the pathogenesis of CMBs.

Objective: To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture-level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing "watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of "watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′s exact test for categorical variables. Results: Forty-eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3-year disease-free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty-five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over-treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%,70/77) and DWI-MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well-differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty-six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long-term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine + oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty-one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty-four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non-metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty-two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus-preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty-nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty-six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow-up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty-one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty-six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non-operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non-operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

Objective To understand the perceptions, attitudes and treatment selection of Chinese surgeons on the "watch and wait" strategy for rectal cancer patients after achieving a clinical complete response (cCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT). Methods A cross?sectional survey was used in this study. Selection of subjects: (1) Domestic public grade III A (provincial and prefecture?level) oncology hospitals or general hospitals possessing the radiotherapy department and the diagnosis and treatment qualifications for colorectal cancer. (2) Surgeons of deputy chief physician or above. Using the "Questionnaire Star" online survey platform to create a questionnaire about cognition, attitude and treatment choice of the "watch and wait" strategy after cCR following nCRT for rectal cancer. The questionnaire contained 32 questions, such as the basic information of doctor, the current status of rectal cancer surgery, the management of pathological complete remission (ypCR) after nCRT for rectal cancer, the selection of examination items for diagnosis of cCR, the selection of suitable people undergoing"watch and wait" approach, the nCRT mode for promotion of cCR, the choice of evaluation time point, the willingness to perform "watch and wait" approach and the treatment choice, and the risk and monitoring of"watch and wait" approach. A total of 116 questionnaires were sent to the respondents via WeChat between January 31 and February 19, 2019. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher′ s exact test for categorical variables. Results Forty?eight hospitals including 116 surgeons meeting criteria were enrolled, of whom 77 surgeons filled the questionnaire with a response rate of 66.4%. "Watch and wait" strategy was carried out in 76.6% (59/77) of surgeons. Seventy surgeons (90.9%) were aware of the ypCR rate of rectal cancer after preoperative nCRT and 49 surgeons (63.6%) knew the 3?year disease?free survival of patients with ypCR in their own hospitals. Fifty?five surgeons (71.4%) believed that patients with ypCR undergoing radical surgery met the treatment criteria and were not over?treated. Three most necessary examinations in diagnosing cCR were colonoscopy (96.1%, 74/77), digital rectal examination (DRE) (90.9%, 70/77) and DWI?MRI (83.1%, 64/77). Responders preferred to consider a "watch and wait" strategy for patients with baseline characteristics as mrN0 (77.9%, 60/77), mrT2 (68.8%, 53/77) and well?differentiated adenocarcinoma (68.8%, 53/77). Sixty?six surgeons (85.7%) believed that long?term chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) with combination or without combination of induction and/or consolidation of the CapeOX regimen (capecitabine+oxaliplatin) should be the first choice as a neoadjuvant therapy to achieve cCR. Forty?one surgeons (53.2%) believed that a reasonable interval of judging cCR after nCRT should be ≥ 8 weeks. Forty?four surgeons (57.1%) routinely, or in most cases, informed patient the possibility of cCR and proposed to "watch and wait" strategy in the initial diagnosis of patients with non?metastatic rectal cancer. Thirteen surgeons (16.9%) would take the "watch and wait" strategy as the first choice after the patient having cCR. Fifty?two surgeons (67.5%) would be affected by the surgical method, that was to say, "watch and wait" approach would only be recommended to those patients who would achieve cCR and could not preserve the anus or underwent difficult anus?preservation surgery. Sixteen surgeons (20.8%) demonstrated that "watch and wait" strategy would not be recommended to patients with cCR regardless of whether the surgical procedure involved anal sphincter. Eleven surgeons (14.3%) believed that the main risk of "watch and wait" approach came from distant metastasis rather than local recurrence or regrowth. Twenty?nine of surgeons (37.7%) did not understand the difference between "local recurrence" and "local regrowth" during the period of "watch and wait". Twenty?six surgeons (33.8%) thought that the monitoring interval for the first 3 years of "watch and wait" strategy was 3 months, and the follow?up monitoring interval could be 6 months to 5 years. Surgeons from cancer specialist hospitals had higher approval rate, notification rate, and referral rate of "watch and wait" strategy than those from general hospitals. Thirty?one surgeons (42.5%) considered that the difficulty and concern of carrying out "watch and wait" approach in the future was the disease progress leading to medical disputes. Twenty?six surgeons (35.6%) demonstrated that their concern was lack of uniform evaluation standard for cCR. Conclusions Chinese surgeons seem to have inadequate knowledge of non?operative management for rectal cancer patients achieving cCR after nCRT and show relatively conservative attitudes toward the strategy. Chinese consensus needs to be formed to guide the non?operative management in selected patients. Chinese Watch & Wait Database (CWWD) is also needed to establish and provide more evidence for the use of alternative procedure after a cCR following nCRT.

OBJECTIVETo explore the applicable value of transanal total mesorectal excision (taTME) in male low rectal cancer patients with narrow pelvis-"difficult pelvis", which remains difficult for both open and laparoscopic sphincter-saving operations.

METHODSClinical data of male low rectal cancer patients diagnosed by pathology undergoing taTME between June 2016 and January 2018 at Peking University Cancer Hospital were collected. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients were selected according to the following criteria: (1) low rectal cancer, the distance between inferior margin of tumor and anal verge ≤5 cm; (2) the distance between two sciatic tubercles <5 cm; (3) body mass index (BMI) >25 kg/m; (4) tumor horizontal diameter ≤4 cm. Operation time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, postoperative complications and anal function were analyzed.

RESULTSA total of 20 patients were included in this study. All the patients received preoperative neoadjuvant chemoradiation and hybrid transabdominal and transanal surgery. The median BMI was 27.7(26.2-36.4) kg/m; the median distance between two sciatic tubercles was 92.5 (78-100) mm; the median distance between the inferior margin of tumor to the anal verge was 4 (2-5) cm; the median operation time was 302 (215-402) min; the median intraoperative blood loss was 100 (50-200) ml; the median postoperative hospital stay was 9 (5-15) d. Postoperative complications occurred in 5 patients (25%), including 3 pelvic infection, 1 intestinal obstruction, 1 anastomotic leakage receiving sigmoid colostomy. There was no perioperative death. Sphincter-preservation rate was 100%. Nineteen patients received anal manometry 1 month after operation with normal resting pressure (41.5±8.6) mmHg and squeeze pressure (121.0±11.6) mmHg. All the patients were followed up to March 2018, and the median follow-up time was 4.5 months. Only 1 patient had supraclavicular lymph node metastasis and no local recurrence was found.

CONCLUSIONSThe safety of transanal total mesorectal excision for male patients with low rectal cancer and difficult pelvis is acceptable. TaTME is helpful to preserve the anal sphincter.

Adult ; Anal Canal ; surgery ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Male ; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local ; Pelvis ; surgery ; Postoperative Complications ; Rectal Neoplasms ; surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Universities