Background: Cervical cancer is a common disease among women. Treatment for cervical cancer includes surgery, radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or a combination of chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Cisplatin is the first-line chemotherapy drug for cervical cancer. Research has shown that about 20% of cervical cancer patients become resistant to chemotherapy, which results in decreased results, tumor recurrence, and poor prognosis. Therefore, researching new drugs, improving the sensitivity of cervical cancer cells to cisplatin, and improving the effectiveness of cervical cancer treatment is the basis of this research. Aim: To investigate the inhibitory effect of curcumin on cisplatin-resistant cervical cancer Hela/DDP and SiHa/DDP cell lines. Materials and Methods: The study utilized cisplatin-resistant cervical squamous carcinoma (SiHa/DDP) and adenocarcinoma (Hela/DDP) cell lines. The cells in the experimental group were treated with 8.5 μM of curcumin, while the control group received only the culture medium. A colony formation assay was conducted to assess cell proliferation, with colonies stained using crystal violet; the number of colonies was then counted and compared between the two groups. Results : 1. In the Hela/DDP cell line, the control group formed an average of 507.7±15.70 colonies, whereas the experimental group, treated with curcumin, formed 112.3±16.17 colonies. The difference between the groups was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). 2. In the SiHa/DDP cell line, the control group had an average of 450.3±17.95 colonies, while the experimental group treated with curcumin had 198.3±13.05 colonies. This difference was also statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Conclusions 1. Curcumin significantly reduces the proliferation of cisplatin-resistant cervical squamous cell carcinoma (Hela/DDP) cells. 2. Curcumin significantly reduces the proliferation of cisplatin-resistant cervical adenocarcinoma (SiHa/DDP) cells.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Objective: While minimally invasive-transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS-TLIF) has shown superiority in key clinical metrics over the open approach, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes remains limited. This study compared postoperative recovery trajectories and symptomatic improvement phases between MIS and open TLIF. Methods: This retrospective review included patients who underwent single-level MIS or open TLIF. Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) for back and leg pain were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Segmented regression analysis with mixed-effects modeling, allowing for identification of distinct recovery phases, compared symptomatic trends between approaches. Results: Of 324 patients (268 MIS, 56 open), baseline demographics were similar except for greater preoperative leg pain in the MIS group (NRS: 6.0 vs. 5.0, p = 0.027). A segmented regression model identified 4 ODI recovery phases: postoperative disability phase (PDP, day 0 to 13), early improvement phase (day 13 to 28), late improvement phase (day 28 to 110), and plateau phase (later than day 110). The MIS group exhibited significantly lower disability exacerbation during PDP (β = 0.93 vs. 1.42 points per day, p = 0.008). Additionally, the plateau of NRS back occurred significantly earlier in the MIS group than in the open group (MIS, 26.7 ± 2.6 days vs. open, 51.7 ± 6.6 days, p < 0.001). Conclusion MIS-TLIF resulted in lower postoperative disability during the first 2 weeks compared to the open approach. Furthermore, low back pain achieved an earlier plateau in back pain by about 4 weeks in the MIS approach.

Purpose: The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for radical cystectomy aims to facilitate postoperative recovery and hasten a return to normal daily activities. This study aims to report on the perioperative outcomes of implementation of an ERAS protocol at a single Australian institution. Materials and Methods: We identified 73 patients with pT1–T4 bladder cancer who underwent open radical cystectomy at Western Health, Victoria between June 2016 and August 2021. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed. Perioperative outcomes included length of hospital stay, nasogastric tube requirement and duration of postoperative ileus. Results: The median age was 74 years (interquartile range [IQR] 66–78) for the ERAS group and 70 years (IQR 65–78) for the preERAS group patients. All patients in each group underwent ileal conduit formation. The median length of hospital stay was 7.0 days (IQR 7.0–9.3) for the ERAS group and 12.0 days (IQR 8.0–16.0) for the pre-ERAS group (p=0.003). Within the ERAS group, 25.0% had a postoperative ileus, and 25.0% had a nasogastric tube inserted, compared with 64.9% (p=0.001) and 45.9% (p=0.063) respectively within pre-ERAS group. The median bowel function recovery time, defined as duration from surgery to first bowel action, was 5.0 days (IQR 4.0–7.0) in the ERAS group and 7.5 days (IQR 5.0–8.5) in the pre-ERAS group (p=0.016). Conclusions Implementation of an ERAS protocol is associated with a reduction in hospital length of stay, postoperative ileus and bowel function recovery time.

In order to guide clinical blood transfusion practices for pediatric patients, the National Health Commission has released the health standard "Guideline for pediatric transfusion" (WS/T 795-2022). Considering the physiological particularities of the neonatal period, blood transfusion practices for neonates are more complex than those for other children, the guidelines include a separate chapter dedicated to neonatal blood transfusion. This paper interprets the background and evidence for the compilation of the neonatal blood transfusion provisions, hoping to aid in the understanding and implementation of the neonatal blood transfusion section of the guidelines.
Humans ; Infant, Newborn ; Blood Transfusion/standards* ; Practice Guidelines as Topic

Humans ; Stomach Neoplasms/pathology* ; Gastric Mucosa/pathology* ; Adenocarcinoma/pathology*