1.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
2.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
3.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
4.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
5.Predicting Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer Using Urine Metabolomics via Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectrometry
Chung-Hsin CHEN ; Hsiang-Po HUANG ; Kai-Hsiung CHANG ; Ming-Shyue LEE ; Cheng-Fan LEE ; Chih-Yu LIN ; Yuan Chi LIN ; William J. HUANG ; Chun-Hou LIAO ; Chih-Chin YU ; Shiu-Dong CHUNG ; Yao-Chou TSAI ; Chia-Chang WU ; Chen-Hsun HO ; Pei-Wen HSIAO ; Yeong-Shiau PU ;
The World Journal of Men's Health 2025;43(2):376-386
Purpose:
Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles.
Materials and Methods:
Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion.
Results:
The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column.
Conclusions
Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.
6.Research on Application of Medical Device Real-World Evidence in Regulatory Decisions of the United States.
Xiaofang GU ; Yuanyuan HOU ; Kai LIN ; Juenan PAN
Chinese Journal of Medical Instrumentation 2025;49(4):460-465
In recent years, with the development of big data application technology, the real-world data and the corresponding generated real-world evidence have attracted the attention of healthcare regulatory authorities around the world. Regulators recognize that real-world research with specific purposes using real-world data can provide important evidence for regulatory decisions. A total of 90 instances of publicly released on the application of real-world evidence to support regulatory decisions of U. S. Food and Drug Administration are explored, and the positioning and value of real-world evidence in U. S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory decisions are summarized and analyzed, providing references for the use of real-world data and real-world evidence to promote medical devices whole cycle regulation in China.
United States
;
United States Food and Drug Administration
;
Equipment and Supplies
;
Device Approval
;
China
7.Experimental Study on Treatment of Gastric Cancer with New Recombinant Oncolytic Vaccinia Virus Infection Combined with Immune Effective Cells and Immune Checkpoint Blocking
Lin ZHANG ; Yanhong HOU ; Kai WU ; Jing ZHANG
Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment 2024;51(6):426-431
Objective To explore the significance of the combined strategy of oncolytic virus infection,immune effector cell supplement,and immune checkpoint blocking in the treatment of gastric cancer.Methods A tumor-bearing nude mouse model of gastric cancer was treated with recombinant oncolytic vaccinia virus carrying the CXCL9 gene of T lymphocyte chemokine and IL-7gene(VV-IL7-CXCL9)obtained in previous experiments.We established a triple-intervention group of recombinant oncolytic vaccinia virus intratumoral injection+cytotoxic T lymphocyte(CTL)+immune checkpoint blocker(PD-1 monoclonal antibody),a single-intervention group of three measures,a dual-intervention group,and a blank control group.After the intervention,tumor-growth curve method,tumor-inhibition rate method,and bioluminescence method were used to detect the tumor treatment effect.ELISA was used to detect CXCL9 and IL-7 molecule concentration in the serum and tissue homogenate of animals in each group.Results The therapeutic results of animal models showed that the tumor growth in the triple-intervention group of recombinant oncolytic poxvirus+CTL+immune checkpoint blocker(PD-1 monoclonal antibody)was significantly slower than those in the other intervention and the blank control group.Conclusion The combination of recombinant oncolytic poxvirus intratumoral injection+CTL+immune checkpoint blocker(PD-1 monoclonal antibody)exert a strong antitumor effect in intervention experiments on gastric-cancer animal models.
8.The noise level in metro platforms and halls in a city
Xuebo HOU ; Xia ZHANG ; Yong NING ; Lin ZHANG ; Jianhui GAO ; Kai WANG ; Jin SU
Shanghai Journal of Preventive Medicine 2024;36(3):237-240
ObjectiveTo investigate the noise level and influencing factors in metro platforms and station halls, thereby providing the scientific basis for the establishment of hygienic standards. MethodsDuring the morning peak(7:00‒9:30)and off-peak (9:30‒17:00) on weekdays, the noise levels were measured with noise meters at 39 monitoring points of 13 station platforms and 31 monitoring points of 6 station halls. The monitoring points arrangement and detection methods referred to the Examination methods for public places—Part 1: physical parameters(GB/T 18204.1‒2013). ResultsThe measured noise level in the station ranged from 69.25 to 86.17 dB(A), accounting for 44.74% below 75 dB(A), 89.47% below 80 dB(A) and 97.37% below 85 dB(A).The noise level of the platform [(76.38±4.19) dB(A)] was higher than that of the station hall [(74.24±4.50) dB(A)](P<0.01). The noise level of the elevated platforms [(80.01±2.25) dB(A)] was higher than that of the underground platforms [(75.73±4.13) dB(A)](P<0.01), and the noise level of the platforms without platform screen doors(PSD) [(80.21±5.08) dB(A)] was higher than that of platforms with PSD[(74.73±3.16) dB(A)] (P<0.01). No statistical significant differences were observed among the different areas of the platforms, monitoring periods, platform depth, exit mode and operation years (P>0.05). ConclusionThe noise level in metro stations in the city does not fully meet the requirements of current relevant standards. It is suggested to take noise reduction measures to reduce the noise of metro stations.
9.Chinese expert consensus on blood support mode and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma patients (version 2024)
Yao LU ; Yang LI ; Leiying ZHANG ; Hao TANG ; Huidan JING ; Yaoli WANG ; Xiangzhi JIA ; Li BA ; Maohong BIAN ; Dan CAI ; Hui CAI ; Xiaohong CAI ; Zhanshan ZHA ; Bingyu CHEN ; Daqing CHEN ; Feng CHEN ; Guoan CHEN ; Haiming CHEN ; Jing CHEN ; Min CHEN ; Qing CHEN ; Shu CHEN ; Xi CHEN ; Jinfeng CHENG ; Xiaoling CHU ; Hongwang CUI ; Xin CUI ; Zhen DA ; Ying DAI ; Surong DENG ; Weiqun DONG ; Weimin FAN ; Ke FENG ; Danhui FU ; Yongshui FU ; Qi FU ; Xuemei FU ; Jia GAN ; Xinyu GAN ; Wei GAO ; Huaizheng GONG ; Rong GUI ; Geng GUO ; Ning HAN ; Yiwen HAO ; Wubing HE ; Qiang HONG ; Ruiqin HOU ; Wei HOU ; Jie HU ; Peiyang HU ; Xi HU ; Xiaoyu HU ; Guangbin HUANG ; Jie HUANG ; Xiangyan HUANG ; Yuanshuai HUANG ; Shouyong HUN ; Xuebing JIANG ; Ping JIN ; Dong LAI ; Aiping LE ; Hongmei LI ; Bijuan LI ; Cuiying LI ; Daihong LI ; Haihong LI ; He LI ; Hui LI ; Jianping LI ; Ning LI ; Xiying LI ; Xiangmin LI ; Xiaofei LI ; Xiaojuan LI ; Zhiqiang LI ; Zhongjun LI ; Zunyan LI ; Huaqin LIANG ; Xiaohua LIANG ; Dongfa LIAO ; Qun LIAO ; Yan LIAO ; Jiajin LIN ; Chunxia LIU ; Fenghua LIU ; Peixian LIU ; Tiemei LIU ; Xiaoxin LIU ; Zhiwei LIU ; Zhongdi LIU ; Hua LU ; Jianfeng LUAN ; Jianjun LUO ; Qun LUO ; Dingfeng LYU ; Qi LYU ; Xianping LYU ; Aijun MA ; Liqiang MA ; Shuxuan MA ; Xainjun MA ; Xiaogang MA ; Xiaoli MA ; Guoqing MAO ; Shijie MU ; Shaolin NIE ; Shujuan OUYANG ; Xilin OUYANG ; Chunqiu PAN ; Jian PAN ; Xiaohua PAN ; Lei PENG ; Tao PENG ; Baohua QIAN ; Shu QIAO ; Li QIN ; Ying REN ; Zhaoqi REN ; Ruiming RONG ; Changshan SU ; Mingwei SUN ; Wenwu SUN ; Zhenwei SUN ; Haiping TANG ; Xiaofeng TANG ; Changjiu TANG ; Cuihua TAO ; Zhibin TIAN ; Juan WANG ; Baoyan WANG ; Chunyan WANG ; Gefei WANG ; Haiyan WANG ; Hongjie WANG ; Peng WANG ; Pengli WANG ; Qiushi WANG ; Xiaoning WANG ; Xinhua WANG ; Xuefeng WANG ; Yong WANG ; Yongjun WANG ; Yuanjie WANG ; Zhihua WANG ; Shaojun WEI ; Yaming WEI ; Jianbo WEN ; Jun WEN ; Jiang WU ; Jufeng WU ; Aijun XIA ; Fei XIA ; Rong XIA ; Jue XIE ; Yanchao XING ; Yan XIONG ; Feng XU ; Yongzhu XU ; Yongan XU ; Yonghe YAN ; Beizhan YAN ; Jiang YANG ; Jiangcun YANG ; Jun YANG ; Xinwen YANG ; Yongyi YANG ; Chunyan YAO ; Mingliang YE ; Changlin YIN ; Ming YIN ; Wen YIN ; Lianling YU ; Shuhong YU ; Zebo YU ; Yigang YU ; Anyong YU ; Hong YUAN ; Yi YUAN ; Chan ZHANG ; Jinjun ZHANG ; Jun ZHANG ; Kai ZHANG ; Leibing ZHANG ; Quan ZHANG ; Rongjiang ZHANG ; Sanming ZHANG ; Shengji ZHANG ; Shuo ZHANG ; Wei ZHANG ; Weidong ZHANG ; Xi ZHANG ; Xingwen ZHANG ; Guixi ZHANG ; Xiaojun ZHANG ; Guoqing ZHAO ; Jianpeng ZHAO ; Shuming ZHAO ; Beibei ZHENG ; Shangen ZHENG ; Huayou ZHOU ; Jicheng ZHOU ; Lihong ZHOU ; Mou ZHOU ; Xiaoyu ZHOU ; Xuelian ZHOU ; Yuan ZHOU ; Zheng ZHOU ; Zuhuang ZHOU ; Haiyan ZHU ; Peiyuan ZHU ; Changju ZHU ; Lili ZHU ; Zhengguo WANG ; Jianxin JIANG ; Deqing WANG ; Jiongcai LAN ; Quanli WANG ; Yang YU ; Lianyang ZHANG ; Aiqing WEN
Chinese Journal of Trauma 2024;40(10):865-881
Patients with severe trauma require an extremely timely treatment and transfusion plays an irreplaceable role in the emergency treatment of such patients. An increasing number of evidence-based medicinal evidences and clinical practices suggest that patients with severe traumatic bleeding benefit from early transfusion of low-titer group O whole blood or hemostatic resuscitation with red blood cells, plasma and platelet of a balanced ratio. However, the current domestic mode of blood supply cannot fully meet the requirements of timely and effective blood transfusion for emergency treatment of patients with severe trauma in clinical practice. In order to solve the key problems in blood supply and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma, Branch of Clinical Transfusion Medicine of Chinese Medical Association, Group for Trauma Emergency Care and Multiple Injuries of Trauma Branch of Chinese Medical Association, Young Scholar Group of Disaster Medicine Branch of Chinese Medical Association organized domestic experts of blood transfusion medicine and trauma treatment to jointly formulate Chinese expert consensus on blood support mode and blood transfusion strategies for emergency treatment of severe trauma patients ( version 2024). Based on the evidence-based medical evidence and Delphi method of expert consultation and voting, 10 recommendations were put forward from two aspects of blood support mode and transfusion strategies, aiming to provide a reference for transfusion resuscitation in the emergency treatment of severe trauma and further improve the success rate of treatment of patients with severe trauma.
10.Protective loop ileostomy or colostomy? A risk evaluation of all common complications
Yi-Wen YANG ; Sheng-Chieh HUANG ; Hou-Hsuan CHENG ; Shih-Ching CHANG ; Jeng-Kai JIANG ; Huann-Sheng WANG ; Chun-Chi LIN ; Hung-Hsin LIN ; Yuan-Tzu LAN
Annals of Coloproctology 2024;40(6):580-587
Purpose:
Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice.
Methods:
Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared.
Results:
There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542).
Conclusion
We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Result Analysis
Print
Save
E-mail