BACKGROUND: Embryo-endometrium cross-talk is one of the critical processes for implantation, and unsuccessful cross-talk leads to infertility. We established an endometrium-embryo (or embryoid bodies, hEBs) in vitro model in 2D and 3D conditions and assessed its potential through the fusion of embryos and the expression of specific markers. METHODS: C57BL/6 mouse embryos and human embryoid body (hEB) derived from embryonic stem cells were prepared as embryo models. Mouse endometrium (EM) and human endometrium cell line, HEC-1-A, were prepared, and 2D or 3D EMs were generated. The viability of the 3D endometrium was analyzed, and the optimal ratio of the gelation was revealed. The invasion of the embryos or hEBs was examined by immunostaining and 3D image rendering. RESULTS: The embryos and the alternative hEBs were effectively fused into 2D or 3D vitro EM models in both mouse and human models. The fused embryos and hEBs exhibited migration and further development. Notably, the established in vitro model expressed Oct4 and E-Cadherin, markers for early embryonic development; human CG Receptor and Progesterone Receptor, critical for implantation and pregnancy maintenance; and TSH Receptor, Epiregulin, and Prolactin, indicators of endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation. CONCLUSION This study marks a significant advancement in the field, as we have successfully established a novel in vitro model for studying embryo-endometrium cross-talk. This model, a crucial tool for understanding fertility and the causes of miscarriage due to failed implantation, provides a unique platform for investigating the complex processes of successful implantation and pregnancy, underscoring its potential impact on reproductive health.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

BACKGROUND: Embryo-endometrium cross-talk is one of the critical processes for implantation, and unsuccessful cross-talk leads to infertility. We established an endometrium-embryo (or embryoid bodies, hEBs) in vitro model in 2D and 3D conditions and assessed its potential through the fusion of embryos and the expression of specific markers. METHODS: C57BL/6 mouse embryos and human embryoid body (hEB) derived from embryonic stem cells were prepared as embryo models. Mouse endometrium (EM) and human endometrium cell line, HEC-1-A, were prepared, and 2D or 3D EMs were generated. The viability of the 3D endometrium was analyzed, and the optimal ratio of the gelation was revealed. The invasion of the embryos or hEBs was examined by immunostaining and 3D image rendering. RESULTS: The embryos and the alternative hEBs were effectively fused into 2D or 3D vitro EM models in both mouse and human models. The fused embryos and hEBs exhibited migration and further development. Notably, the established in vitro model expressed Oct4 and E-Cadherin, markers for early embryonic development; human CG Receptor and Progesterone Receptor, critical for implantation and pregnancy maintenance; and TSH Receptor, Epiregulin, and Prolactin, indicators of endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation. CONCLUSION This study marks a significant advancement in the field, as we have successfully established a novel in vitro model for studying embryo-endometrium cross-talk. This model, a crucial tool for understanding fertility and the causes of miscarriage due to failed implantation, provides a unique platform for investigating the complex processes of successful implantation and pregnancy, underscoring its potential impact on reproductive health.

BACKGROUND: Embryo-endometrium cross-talk is one of the critical processes for implantation, and unsuccessful cross-talk leads to infertility. We established an endometrium-embryo (or embryoid bodies, hEBs) in vitro model in 2D and 3D conditions and assessed its potential through the fusion of embryos and the expression of specific markers. METHODS: C57BL/6 mouse embryos and human embryoid body (hEB) derived from embryonic stem cells were prepared as embryo models. Mouse endometrium (EM) and human endometrium cell line, HEC-1-A, were prepared, and 2D or 3D EMs were generated. The viability of the 3D endometrium was analyzed, and the optimal ratio of the gelation was revealed. The invasion of the embryos or hEBs was examined by immunostaining and 3D image rendering. RESULTS: The embryos and the alternative hEBs were effectively fused into 2D or 3D vitro EM models in both mouse and human models. The fused embryos and hEBs exhibited migration and further development. Notably, the established in vitro model expressed Oct4 and E-Cadherin, markers for early embryonic development; human CG Receptor and Progesterone Receptor, critical for implantation and pregnancy maintenance; and TSH Receptor, Epiregulin, and Prolactin, indicators of endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation. CONCLUSION This study marks a significant advancement in the field, as we have successfully established a novel in vitro model for studying embryo-endometrium cross-talk. This model, a crucial tool for understanding fertility and the causes of miscarriage due to failed implantation, provides a unique platform for investigating the complex processes of successful implantation and pregnancy, underscoring its potential impact on reproductive health.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.

Background: Decreased acetabular version and posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head have been regarded as the leading causes of sport-related posterior hip dislocation or subluxation. This study aimed to examine the posterior acetabular coverage of the femoral head in 21 patients who sustained posterior hip dislocation or subluxation during sport activities. Methods: The anterior and posterior acetabular rims on 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT) images were delineated on the normal side in these patients. Radiologic signs, including crossover and posterior wall signs, were examined. The fracture center level (FCL) of the posterior acetabular wall was identified on axial CT images of the injured hip and the level was marked on the normal side. The difference in the femoral head coverage by posterior and anterior acetabular rims was measured by measuring the horizontal distance between anterior and posterior acetabular rims at the FCL (posterior-anterior [P-A] index). The acetabular version was measured at the femoral head and FCL using axial CT images of the normal side. Femoral head coverage by the posterior acetabular wall on the normal side was measured using 3D-CT (areal coverage). Results: The crossover and posterior wall signs were positive in 14 and 10 patients, respectively, in 3D-CT images. The FCL was evenly distributed in the proximal half of the posterior acetabular wall. Seven patients had a P-A index of ≤ 0, and all were positive for the crossover sign. The anterior acetabular rim was relatively prominent in these patients. The acetabular version was lower at the FCL than at the femoral head center (p < 0.001). The proximal half areal coverage of the posterior acetabular wall was significantly smaller than the whole areal coverage (p = 0.003). Conclusions Superior–posterior coverage of the femoral head by the posterior acetabular wall was insufficient in patients who sustained hip posterior dislocation or subluxation during sports activities.

BACKGROUND: Embryo-endometrium cross-talk is one of the critical processes for implantation, and unsuccessful cross-talk leads to infertility. We established an endometrium-embryo (or embryoid bodies, hEBs) in vitro model in 2D and 3D conditions and assessed its potential through the fusion of embryos and the expression of specific markers. METHODS: C57BL/6 mouse embryos and human embryoid body (hEB) derived from embryonic stem cells were prepared as embryo models. Mouse endometrium (EM) and human endometrium cell line, HEC-1-A, were prepared, and 2D or 3D EMs were generated. The viability of the 3D endometrium was analyzed, and the optimal ratio of the gelation was revealed. The invasion of the embryos or hEBs was examined by immunostaining and 3D image rendering. RESULTS: The embryos and the alternative hEBs were effectively fused into 2D or 3D vitro EM models in both mouse and human models. The fused embryos and hEBs exhibited migration and further development. Notably, the established in vitro model expressed Oct4 and E-Cadherin, markers for early embryonic development; human CG Receptor and Progesterone Receptor, critical for implantation and pregnancy maintenance; and TSH Receptor, Epiregulin, and Prolactin, indicators of endometrial receptivity and embryo implantation. CONCLUSION This study marks a significant advancement in the field, as we have successfully established a novel in vitro model for studying embryo-endometrium cross-talk. This model, a crucial tool for understanding fertility and the causes of miscarriage due to failed implantation, provides a unique platform for investigating the complex processes of successful implantation and pregnancy, underscoring its potential impact on reproductive health.

Purpose: Despite the widespread use of liquid skin adhesives (LSA), concerns persist regarding the increase in wound care costs. This study aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of LSA for surgical wound management. Methods: In this prospective, open-label, single-center randomized controlled trial, adults aged 19 years and older who were scheduled for elective minimally invasive colorectal surgeries were included. The participants were randomly divided into 2 groups: an n-butyl cyanoacrylate skin adhesive was used in the experimental group (LSA group), while a surgical skin stapler was employed in the control group (stapler group). The primary outcome measure was the sum of the total time required for wound management. Results: A total of 58 patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups, with 29 patients in each group. The findings revealed comparable wound complication rates in the 2 groups (8 out of 29 in the LSA group vs. 5 out of 29 in the stapler group, P = 0.530). Notably, the LSA group had a significantly shorter wound management time (median 235 seconds vs. 1,201 seconds, P < 0.001) and similar wound management cost (median US dollar [USD] 50.6 vs. USD 54.6, P = 0.529) compared to the stapler group. Subgroup analysis showed that the LSA group had a shorter management time for uncomplicated wounds and a lower cost for complicated wounds. Conclusion LSA not only provides a safe alternative but also offers a resource-efficient option for wound management compared to staplers.