No abstract available.
Patellar Dislocation*

The precise effects of protein intake on fractional synthesis rate (FSR) of muscle protein are still under debate. The sample size of these studies was small and the conclusions in young and elderly subjects were inconsistent. To assess the effect of dietary protein intake on the FSR level, we conducted a meta-analysis of controlled protein intake trials. Random-effects models were used to calculate the weighted mean differences (WMDs). Ten studies were included and effects of short-term protein intake were evaluated. In an overall pooled estimate, protein intake significantly increased the FSR (20 trials, 368 participants; WMD: 0.025%/h; 95%CI: 0.019-0.031; P < 0.0001). Meta-regression analysis suggested that the protein dose was positively related to the effect size (regression coefficient = 0.108%/h; 95%CI: 0.035, 0.182; P = 0.009). A subgroup analysis indicated that protein intake significantly increased FSR when the protein dose was < or = 0.80 g/kg BW (16 trials, 308 participants; WMD: 0.027%/h; 95%CI: 0.019-0.031; P < 0.0001), but did not affect FSR when the protein dose was > 0.80 g/kg BW (4 trials, 60 participants; WMD: 0.016%/h; 95%CI: 0.004-0.029; P = 0.98). In conclusion, this study is the first integrated results showing that a short-term protein intake is effective at improving the FSR of muscle protein in the healthy elderly as well as young subjects. This beneficial effect seems to be dose-dependent when the dose levels of protein range from 0.08 to 0.80 g/kg BW.
Aged ; Dietary Proteins ; Humans ; Muscle Proteins ; Muscles ; Sample Size

PURPOSE: We wanted to evaluate the effectiveness of stent placement on the superior mesenteric artery as a treatment for chronic mesenteric ischemia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven patients (mean age: 55 years, age range: 43-66 years) with chronic mesenteric ischemia were enrolled between March 2000 and September 2003. All the patients underwent pre-procedure contrast enhanced computerized tomography to evaluate for occlusion or stenosis of the mesenteric arteries and they then underwent an angiographic procedure. A balloon-expandable metal stent was placed in the superior mesenteric artery, and this was combined with balloon angioplasty and thrombolysis. We evaluated the angiographic and procedural success after the procedures. RESULTS: Angiographic and procedural success was obtained in 100% of the patients and the clinical symptoms improved in 100% of the patients. The patency at 6-months and 1-year was 85% and 71%, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 12 months (range: 1-25 months). During the follow-up period, ischemic symptoms recurred in 2 patients, and restenosis in a stent was confirmed with angiography; one patient was successfully treated by stent placement in the celiac artery and the other patient died due to extensive mesenteric thrombosis. CONCLUSION: For the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia, percutaneuos stent placement on the superior mesenteric artery showed a favorable result and it was an effective alternative to surgery for the high-risk patients.
Angioplasty, Balloon ; Celiac Artery ; Constriction, Pathologic ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Ischemia ; Mesenteric Arteries ; Mesenteric Artery, Superior ; Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion ; Stents ; Vascular Diseases

Toxic megacolon is a rare clinical complication of fulminant Clostridium difficile infection. The mortality rate of fulminant C. difficile infection is reported to be as high as 50%. Fecal microbiota transplantation is a highly effective treatment in patients with recurrent or refractory C. difficile infection. However, there are few published articles on the use of such transplantation for fulminant C. difficile infection. Here, we report on a patient with toxic megacolon complicated by C. difficile infection who was treated successfully with fecal microbiota transplantation.
Aged ; *Clostridium difficile ; Enterocolitis, Pseudomembranous/*complications ; Fecal Microbiota Transplantation/*methods ; Feces/*microbiology ; Humans ; Male ; Megacolon, Toxic/*microbiology/*therapy

Diphenylhydantoin (DPH) is one of the most widely used anticonvulsants for treatment and prevention of seizures. However it is frequently associated with drug-induced leukopenia. Hypersensitivity reactions to phenytoin are well recognized and can be severe. Phenytoin is associated with serious hematologic side effects such as agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia, red cell aplasia and hemolytic anemia, either through humoral or cell-mediated immunemechanism. We describe a 57-year-old male patient who developed a severe granulocytopenia while taking phenytoin for 66 days in the total amount of 21.6 gram. Bone marrow examination showed isolated depletion of myeloid elements. After 10 days of phenytoin withdrawal and G-CSF treatment, the patient recovered from granulocytic suppression. Using in vitro culture, marrow suppression associated with phenytoin therapy was felt to be non-immune mediated marrow suppression.
Agranulocytosis ; Anemia, Hemolytic ; Anticonvulsants ; Bone Marrow Examination ; Bone Marrow* ; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor ; Humans ; Hypersensitivity ; Leukopenia ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Phenytoin* ; Seizures ; Thrombocytopenia

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Background: Oral sulfate tablets (OSTs) are bowel preparation agents that combine oral sulfate solution and simethicone. This study compared the efficacy, tolerability, and safety of OST compared to 2 L-polyethylene glycol plus ascorbic acid (2 L-PEG/ASC). Methods: This prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial enrolled 211 healthy adults who underwent colonoscopy between May 2020 and September 2022 at 13 university hospitals. The bowel cleansing rate was assessed using the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Harefield Cleansing Scale (HCS), and the preparation agents were administered in split regimens. Results: The total BBPS score (8.2 ± 1.5 vs. 7.8 ± 1.4, p = 0.040) and the high-quality bowel cleansing rates in the right colon (73.2% vs. 50.5), transverse colon (80.6% vs. 68.0%), and left colon (81.5% vs. 67.0%) on the BBPS were significantly higher in the OST group than in the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. However, the rates of successful cleansing according to BBPS (90.7% vs. 91.2%) and HCS (96.3% vs. 94.2%) did not significantly differ between the two groups.The taste, ease, and amount of consumption of the preparation agent; and willingness to repeat colonoscopy with the same agent (89.8% vs. 78.6%, P = 0.026) were significantly better in the OST group compared to the 2 L-PEG/ASC group. Adverse events and clinically significant laboratory changes were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusion The OST was not inferior to 2 L-PEG/ASC in terms of bowel cleansing efficacy and showed better tolerability when used for bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Chronic hemodialysis patients frequently experience hemodialysis(HD)-related side effects caused by excessive ultrafiltration and abrupt change of osmolality. Sodium ramping in HD is known to reduce ultrafiltration-related side effects, but it frequently induces symptoms related to sodium overload. We wanted to know the relationship between blood volume changes and the side effects related to ultrafiltration during hemodialysis and whether we can individualize various sodium ramping methods according to the effect of change in blood volume( BV) and side effects of sodium ramping. We studied 9 hypotension-prone patients during HD. The duration of the study lasted for 5 weeks, each week using different sodium ramping protocols: protocol 1; dialysate [Na+] of 140mEq/L, protocol 2; dialysate [Na+] same as the predialysis serum [Na+], protocol 3; dialysate [Na+] was 20mEq/L greater than that of the patient's serum for 1hr, 10mEq/L greater than patient's serum [Na+] for 2hr and then the same as patient's serum [Na+] for the last 1hr, protocol 4; at the beginning of dialysis, dialysate sodium was ramped to 20mEq/L above the patient's serum sodium and then on a straight linear fashion lowered to the predialysis serum [Na+] at the end of dialysis, protocol 5; sodium was constantly ramped to 10 mEq/L above serum [Na+]. We measured the BV with Crit-Line IIR(In-Line Diagnostics, Corp., Riverdale, USA), the blood pressure during each HD and interdialytic weight gain. We documented subjective symptoms which occurred during the 5 treatment protocols by patient's questionnaire after each HD. The results were as follows. 1) The mean age of the patients(M:F=3:6) was 54.1years and 6 patients were diabetics. 2) There was no significant difference in the BV among the 5 protocols in both whole study population and individual. Neither was there a statistically significant difference in the BV with respect to hypotension during HD. 3) There were no episodes of hypotension(P value <0.001) with protocols 3, 4, 5 compared to protocols 1 and 2. 4) Three patients during protocols 4 and 5 experienced more thirst after HD than during protocol 1 and one patient during protocol 4, 5 had more interdialytic weight gain than the protocol 1. As a whole, patients while on protocol 4 & 5 experienced more thirst than protocol 1 but patients during protocol 3 experienced the same degree of thirst as protocol 1. In summary, sodium ramping reduced HD-related side effects but this benefit could not be explained on the basis of blood volume change measured by the Crit-Line IIR. Protocol 3 may be more appropiate sodium ramping method in 4 of the 9 patients. These data suggest that protocol 3 may be used before protocol 4, 5 when we apply sodium ramping to the patients who frequently have hypotension during HD.
Architectural Accessibility* ; Blood Pressure ; Blood Volume* ; Clinical Protocols ; Dialysis ; Humans ; Hypotension ; Osmolar Concentration ; Renal Dialysis* ; Sodium* ; Thirst ; Ultrafiltration ; Weight Gain ; Surveys and Questionnaires