Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Objective: Full endoscopic cervical surgery (FECS) is an evolving minimally invasive approach for treating cervical spine disorders. This systematic review synthesizes current evidence on the clinical outcomes and patient perspectives associated with FECS, specifically evaluating its safety, efficacy, and overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science databases was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies published between January 2000 and September 2024 that reported on clinical outcomes or patient perspectives related to FECS were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions) tool and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective studies, and observational studies focused on adult populations undergoing FECS for cervical spine surgery. Results: The final synthesis included 30 studies. FECS was associated with significant reductions in both cervical and radicular pain, as well as meaningful functional improvements, measured by standardized clinical scales such as the Neck Disability Index and visual analogue scale. Patient satisfaction rates were consistently high, with most studies reporting satisfaction exceeding 85%. Complication rates were low, primarily involving transient neurological deficits that were typically resolved without the need for further intervention. Nonrandomized studies generally presented a moderate risk of bias due to confounding and selection, whereas randomized controlled trials exhibited a low risk of bias. Conclusion FECS is a safe and effective minimally invasive surgical option for cervical spine disorders associated with substantial pain relief, functional improvement and high levels of patient satisfaction.

By employing the analytic hierarchy process(AHP), the CRITIC method(a weight determination method based on indicator correlations), and the AHP-CRITIC hybrid weighting method, the weight coefficients of evaluation indicators were determined, followed by a comprehensive score comparison. The grey correlation analysis was then performed to analyze the results calculated using the hybrid weighting method. Subsequently, a backpropagation-artificial neural network(BP-ANN) model was constructed to predict the extraction process parameters and optimize the extraction process for Shenxiong Huanglian Jiedu Granules(SHJG). In the extraction process, an L_9(3~4) orthogonal experiment was designed to optimize three factors at three levels, including extraction frequency, water addition amount, and extraction time. The evaluation indicators included geniposide, berberine, ginsenoside Rg_1 + Re, ginsenoside Rb_1, ferulic acid, and extract yield. Finally, the optimal extraction results obtained by the orthogonal experiment, grey correlation analysis, and BP-ANN method were compared, and validation experiments were conducted. The results showed that the optimal extraction process involved two rounds of aqueous extraction, each lasting one hour; the first extraction used ten times the amount of added water, while the second extraction used eight times the amount. In the validation experiments, the average content of each indicator component was higher than the average content obtained in the orthogonal experiment, with a higher comprehensive score. The optimized extraction process parameters were reliable and stable, making them suitable for subsequent preparation process research.
Drugs, Chinese Herbal/analysis* ; Neural Networks, Computer

Poly(ADP-ribosyl)ation (PARylation) is a specific form of post-translational modification (PTM) predominantly triggered by the activation of poly-ADP-ribose polymerase 1 (PARP1). However, the role and mechanism of PARylation in the advancement of acute kidney injury (AKI) remain undetermined. Here, we demonstrated the significant upregulation of PARP1 and its associated PARylation in murine models of AKI, consistent with renal biopsy findings in patients with AKI. This elevation in PARP1 expression might be attributed to trimethylation of histone H3 lysine 4 (H3K4me3). Furthermore, a reduction in PARylation levels mitigated renal dysfunction in the AKI mouse models. Mechanistically, liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry indicated that PARylation mainly occurred in receptor for activated C kinase 1 (RACK1), thereby facilitating its subsequent phosphorylation. Moreover, the phosphorylation of RACK1 enhanced its dimerization and accelerated the ubiquitination-mediated hypoxia inducible factor-1α (HIF-1α) degradation, thereby exacerbating kidney injury. Additionally, we identified a PARP1 proteolysis-targeting chimera (PROTAC), A19, as a PARP1 degrader that demonstrated superior protective effects against renal injury compared with PJ34, a previously identified PARP1 inhibitor. Collectively, both genetic and drug-based inhibition of PARylation mitigated kidney injury, indicating that the PARylated RACK1/HIF-1α axis could be a promising therapeutic target for AKI treatment.

Apical microsurgery is accurate and minimally invasive, produces few complications, and has a success rate of more than 90%. However, due to the lack of awareness and understanding of apical microsurgery by dental general practitioners and even endodontists, many clinical problems remain to be overcome. The consensus has gathered well-known domestic experts to hold a series of special discussions and reached the consensus. This document specifies the indications, contraindications, preoperative preparations, operational procedures, complication prevention measures, and efficacy evaluation of apical microsurgery and is applicable to dentists who perform apical microsurgery after systematic training.
Microsurgery/standards* ; Humans ; Apicoectomy ; Contraindications, Procedure ; Tooth Apex/diagnostic imaging* ; Postoperative Complications/prevention & control* ; Consensus ; Treatment Outcome

Intentional tooth replantation (ITR) is an advanced treatment modality and the procedure of last resort for preserving teeth with inaccessible endodontic or resorptive lesions. ITR is defined as the deliberate extraction of a tooth; evaluation of the root surface, endodontic manipulation, and repair; and placement of the tooth back into its original socket. Case reports, case series, cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the efficacy of ITR in the retention of natural teeth that are untreatable or difficult to manage with root canal treatment or endodontic microsurgery. However, variations in clinical protocols for ITR exist due to the empirical nature of the original protocols and rapid advancements in the field of oral biology and dental materials. This heterogeneity in protocols may cause confusion among dental practitioners; therefore, guidelines and considerations for ITR should be explicated. This expert consensus discusses the biological foundation of ITR, the available clinical protocols and current status of ITR in treating teeth with refractory apical periodontitis or anatomical aberration, and the main complications of this treatment, aiming to refine the clinical management of ITR in accordance with the progress of basic research and clinical studies; the findings suggest that ITR may become a more consistent evidence-based option in dental treatment.
Humans ; Tooth Replantation/methods* ; Consensus ; Periapical Periodontitis/surgery*

Instrument separation is a critical complication during root canal therapy, impacting treatment success and long-term tooth preservation. The etiology of instrument separation is multifactorial, involving the intricate anatomy of the root canal system, instrument-related factors, and instrumentation techniques. Instrument separation can hinder thorough cleaning, shaping, and obturation of the root canal, posing challenges to successful treatment outcomes. Although retrieval of separated instrument is often feasible, it carries risks including perforation, excessive removal of tooth structure and root fractures. Effective management of separated instruments requires a comprehensive understanding of the contributing factors, meticulous preoperative assessment, and precise evaluation of the retrieval difficulty. The application of appropriate retrieval techniques is essential to minimize complications and optimize clinical outcomes. The current manuscript provides a framework for understanding the causes, risk factors, and clinical management principles of instrument separation. By integrating effective strategies, endodontists can enhance decision-making, improve endodontic treatment success and ensure the preservation of natural dentition.
Humans ; Root Canal Therapy/adverse effects* ; Consensus ; Root Canal Preparation/adverse effects*