In this paper， by referring to ancient and modern literature， the textual research of Inulae Flos has been conducted to clarify the name， origin， production area， quality evaluation， harvesting， processing and others， so as to provide reference and basis for the development and utilization of famous classical formulas containing this herb. After textual research， it could be verified that the medicinal use of Inulae Flos was first recorded in Shennong Bencaojing of the Han dynasty. In successive dynasties， Xuanfuhua has been taken as the official name， and it also has other alternative names such as Jinfeicao， Daogeng and Jinqianhua. The period before the Song and Yuan dynasties， the main origin of Inulae Flos was the Asteraceae plant Inula japonica， and from the Ming and Qing dynasties to the present， I. japonica and I. britannica are the primary source. In addition to the dominant basal species， there are also regional species such as I. linariifolia， I. helianthus-aquatili， and I. hupehensis. The earliest recorded production areas in ancient times were Henan， Hubei and other places， and the literature records that it has been distributed throughout the country since modern times. The medicinal part is its flower， the harvesting and processing method recorded in the past dynasties is mainly harvested in the fifth and ninth lunar months， and dried in the sun， and the modern harvesting is mostly harvested in summer and autumn when the flowers bloom， in order to remove impurities， dry in the shade or dry in the sun. In addition， the roots， whole herbs and aerial parts are used as medicinal materials. In ancient times， there were no records about the quality of Inulae Flos， and in modern times， it is generally believed that the quality of complete flower structure， small receptacles， large blooms， yellow petals， long filaments， many fluffs， no fragments， and no branches is better. Ancient processing methods primarily involved cleaning， steaming， and sun-drying， supplemented by techniques such as boiling， roasting， burning， simmering， stir-frying， and honey-processing. Modern processing focuses mainly on cleaning the stems and leaves before use. Regarding the medicinal properties， ancient texts describe it as salty and sweet in taste， slightly warm in nature， and mildly toxic. Modern studies characterize it as bitter， pungent， and salty in taste， with a slightly warm nature. Its therapeutic effects remain consistent across eras， including descending Qi， resolving phlegm， promoting diuresis， and stopping vomiting. Based on the research results， it is recommended that when developing famous classical formulas containing Inulae Flos， either I. japonica or I. britannica should be used as the medicinal source. Processing methods should follow formula requirements， where no processing instructions are specified， the raw products may be used after cleaning.

In this paper， by referring to ancient and modern literature， the textual research of Inulae Flos has been conducted to clarify the name， origin， production area， quality evaluation， harvesting， processing and others， so as to provide reference and basis for the development and utilization of famous classical formulas containing this herb. After textual research， it could be verified that the medicinal use of Inulae Flos was first recorded in Shennong Bencaojing of the Han dynasty. In successive dynasties， Xuanfuhua has been taken as the official name， and it also has other alternative names such as Jinfeicao， Daogeng and Jinqianhua. The period before the Song and Yuan dynasties， the main origin of Inulae Flos was the Asteraceae plant Inula japonica， and from the Ming and Qing dynasties to the present， I. japonica and I. britannica are the primary source. In addition to the dominant basal species， there are also regional species such as I. linariifolia， I. helianthus-aquatili， and I. hupehensis. The earliest recorded production areas in ancient times were Henan， Hubei and other places， and the literature records that it has been distributed throughout the country since modern times. The medicinal part is its flower， the harvesting and processing method recorded in the past dynasties is mainly harvested in the fifth and ninth lunar months， and dried in the sun， and the modern harvesting is mostly harvested in summer and autumn when the flowers bloom， in order to remove impurities， dry in the shade or dry in the sun. In addition， the roots， whole herbs and aerial parts are used as medicinal materials. In ancient times， there were no records about the quality of Inulae Flos， and in modern times， it is generally believed that the quality of complete flower structure， small receptacles， large blooms， yellow petals， long filaments， many fluffs， no fragments， and no branches is better. Ancient processing methods primarily involved cleaning， steaming， and sun-drying， supplemented by techniques such as boiling， roasting， burning， simmering， stir-frying， and honey-processing. Modern processing focuses mainly on cleaning the stems and leaves before use. Regarding the medicinal properties， ancient texts describe it as salty and sweet in taste， slightly warm in nature， and mildly toxic. Modern studies characterize it as bitter， pungent， and salty in taste， with a slightly warm nature. Its therapeutic effects remain consistent across eras， including descending Qi， resolving phlegm， promoting diuresis， and stopping vomiting. Based on the research results， it is recommended that when developing famous classical formulas containing Inulae Flos， either I. japonica or I. britannica should be used as the medicinal source. Processing methods should follow formula requirements， where no processing instructions are specified， the raw products may be used after cleaning.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 32 consecutive IDS patients who underwent UEDD surgery. Clinical features, laboratory data (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Results: Definite microorganisms were identified in 27 patients (84.3%), with 24 (88.9%) meeting cure criteria. The cure rate was significantly higher in the detected pathogen group compared to the undetected pathogen group (88.9% vs. 80%; χ²=19.36, p<0.0001). Metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) provided faster diagnosis (41.72±6.81 hours) compared to tissue culture (95.74±35.47 hours, p<0.05). The predominant causative pathogen was Mycobacterium tuberculosis, followed by Staphylococcus aureus. Significant improvements were observed in Visual Analog Scale pain scores, from a mean of 7.9 preoperatively to 1.06 at 1 year postoperatively. The Oswestry Disability Index revealed a similar trend, showing significant improvement (p<0.05). Conclusions UEDD is a viable alternative to traditional open surgery for managing IDS in high-risk patients. UEDD offers a dual therapeutic-diagnostic advantage during the initial admission phase, enabling simultaneous debridement, neurological decompression, and targeted biopsy in a single intervention. Compared with traditional tissue culture, mNGS enables rapid microbiological diagnosis and extensive pathogen coverage.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 32 consecutive IDS patients who underwent UEDD surgery. Clinical features, laboratory data (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Results: Definite microorganisms were identified in 27 patients (84.3%), with 24 (88.9%) meeting cure criteria. The cure rate was significantly higher in the detected pathogen group compared to the undetected pathogen group (88.9% vs. 80%; χ²=19.36, p<0.0001). Metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) provided faster diagnosis (41.72±6.81 hours) compared to tissue culture (95.74±35.47 hours, p<0.05). The predominant causative pathogen was Mycobacterium tuberculosis, followed by Staphylococcus aureus. Significant improvements were observed in Visual Analog Scale pain scores, from a mean of 7.9 preoperatively to 1.06 at 1 year postoperatively. The Oswestry Disability Index revealed a similar trend, showing significant improvement (p<0.05). Conclusions UEDD is a viable alternative to traditional open surgery for managing IDS in high-risk patients. UEDD offers a dual therapeutic-diagnostic advantage during the initial admission phase, enabling simultaneous debridement, neurological decompression, and targeted biopsy in a single intervention. Compared with traditional tissue culture, mNGS enables rapid microbiological diagnosis and extensive pathogen coverage.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.

Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 32 consecutive IDS patients who underwent UEDD surgery. Clinical features, laboratory data (erythrocyte sedimentation rate and C-reactive protein), and treatment outcomes were analyzed. Results: Definite microorganisms were identified in 27 patients (84.3%), with 24 (88.9%) meeting cure criteria. The cure rate was significantly higher in the detected pathogen group compared to the undetected pathogen group (88.9% vs. 80%; χ²=19.36, p<0.0001). Metagenomic next generation sequencing (mNGS) provided faster diagnosis (41.72±6.81 hours) compared to tissue culture (95.74±35.47 hours, p<0.05). The predominant causative pathogen was Mycobacterium tuberculosis, followed by Staphylococcus aureus. Significant improvements were observed in Visual Analog Scale pain scores, from a mean of 7.9 preoperatively to 1.06 at 1 year postoperatively. The Oswestry Disability Index revealed a similar trend, showing significant improvement (p<0.05). Conclusions UEDD is a viable alternative to traditional open surgery for managing IDS in high-risk patients. UEDD offers a dual therapeutic-diagnostic advantage during the initial admission phase, enabling simultaneous debridement, neurological decompression, and targeted biopsy in a single intervention. Compared with traditional tissue culture, mNGS enables rapid microbiological diagnosis and extensive pathogen coverage.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.