This study primarily aimed to investigate the prevalence of human papillomavirus (HPV) and other common pathogens of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in spermatozoa of infertile men and their effects on semen parameters. These pathogens included Ureaplasma urealyticum, Ureaplasma parvum, Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium , herpes simplex virus 2, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus agalactiae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa , and Staphylococcus aureus . A total of 1951 men of infertile couples were recruited between 23 March 2023, and 17 May 2023, at the Department of Reproductive Medicine of The First People's Hospital of Yunnan Province (Kunming, China). Multiplex polymerase chain reaction and capillary electrophoresis were used for HPV genotyping. Polymerase chain reaction and electrophoresis were also used to detect the presence of other STIs. The overall prevalence of HPV infection was 12.4%. The top five prevalent HPV subtypes were types 56, 52, 43, 16, and 53 among those tested positive for HPV. Other common infections with high prevalence rates were Ureaplasma urealyticum (28.3%), Ureaplasma parvum (20.4%), and Enterococcus faecalis (9.5%). The prevalence rates of HPV coinfection with Ureaplasma urealyticum, Ureaplasma parvum, Chlamydia trachomatis, Mycoplasma genitalium , herpes simplex virus 2, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Enterococcus faecalis, Streptococcus agalactiae , and Staphylococcus aureus were 24.8%, 25.4%, 10.6%, 6.4%, 2.4%, 7.9%, 5.9%, 0.9%, and 1.3%, respectively. The semen volume and total sperm count were greatly decreased by HPV infection alone. Coinfection with HPV and Ureaplasma urealyticum significantly reduced sperm motility and viability. Our study shows that coinfection with STIs is highly prevalent in the semen of infertile men and that coinfection with pathogens can seriously affect semen parameters, emphasizing the necessity of semen screening for STIs.
Humans ; Male ; Infertility, Male/epidemiology* ; Coinfection/microbiology* ; Papillomavirus Infections/virology* ; Adult ; Sexually Transmitted Diseases/complications* ; China/epidemiology* ; Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purification* ; Chlamydia trachomatis/isolation & purification* ; Prevalence ; Mycoplasma genitalium/isolation & purification* ; Ureaplasma urealyticum/isolation & purification* ; Neisseria gonorrhoeae/isolation & purification* ; Enterococcus faecalis/isolation & purification* ; Streptococcus agalactiae/isolation & purification* ; Herpesvirus 2, Human/genetics* ; Pseudomonas aeruginosa/isolation & purification* ; Semen/virology* ; Sperm Motility ; Spermatozoa/microbiology* ; Human Papillomavirus Viruses

The intelligent oxygen management system is a software designed with various algorithms to automatically titrate inhaled oxygen concentration according to specific patterns. This system can be integrated into various ventilator devices and used during assisted ventilation processes, aiming to maintain the patient's blood oxygen saturation within a target range. This paper employs a scoping review methodology, focusing on research related to intelligent oxygen management systems in neonatal intensive care units. It reviews the fundamental principles, application platforms, and clinical outcomes of these systems, providing a theoretical basis for clinical implementation.
Humans ; Intensive Care Units, Neonatal ; Infant, Newborn ; Oxygen/administration & dosage* ; Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods* ; Respiration, Artificial

This consensus will introduce the characteristics of fillers used in the surgical cavities of domestic nasal surgery patients based on relevant literature and expert opinions. It will also provide recommendations for the selection of cavity fillers for different nasal diseases, with chronic sinusitis as a representative example.
Humans ; Nasal Cavity/surgery* ; Nasal Surgical Procedures ; China ; Consensus ; Sinusitis/surgery* ; Dermal Fillers

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

Cemental tear is a rare and indetectable condition unless obvious clinical signs present with the involvement of surrounding periodontal and periapical tissues. Due to its clinical manifestations similar to common dental issues, such as vertical root fracture, primary endodontic diseases, and periodontal diseases, as well as the low awareness of cemental tear for clinicians, misdiagnosis often occurs. The critical principle for cemental tear treatment is to remove torn fragments, and overlooking fragments leads to futile therapy, which could deteriorate the conditions of the affected teeth. Therefore, accurate diagnosis and subsequent appropriate interventions are vital for managing cemental tear. Novel diagnostic tools, including cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), microscopes, and enamel matrix derivatives, have improved early detection and management, enhancing tooth retention. The implementation of standardized diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols, combined with improved clinical awareness among dental professionals, serves to mitigate risks of diagnostic errors and suboptimal therapeutic interventions. This expert consensus reviewed the epidemiology, pathogenesis, potential predisposing factors, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of cemental tear, aiming to provide a clinical guideline and facilitate clinicians to have a better understanding of cemental tear.
Humans ; Dental Cementum/injuries* ; Consensus ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Tooth Fractures/therapy*

OBJECTIVE: Observational studies have found associations between inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and the risk of dementia, including Alzheimer's dementia (AD) and vascular dementia (VD); however, these findings are inconsistent. It remains unclear whether these associations are causal. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis by systematically searching for observational studies on the association between IBD and dementia. Mendelian randomization (MR) analysis based on summary genome-wide association studies (GWASs) was performed. Genetic correlation and Bayesian co-localization analyses were used to provide robust genetic evidence. RESULTS: Ten observational studies involving 80,565,688 participants were included in this meta-analysis. IBD was significantly associated with dementia (risk ratio [ RR] =1.36, 95% CI = 1.04-1.78; I ² = 84.8%) and VD ( RR = 2.60, 95% CI = 1.18-5.70; only one study), but not with AD ( RR = 2.00, 95% CI = 0.96-4.13; I ² = 99.8%). MR analyses did not supported significant causal associations of IBD with dementia (dementia: odds ratio [ OR] = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.98-1.03; AD: OR = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.95-1.01; VD: OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.97-1.07). In addition, genetic correlation and co-localization analyses did not reveal any genetic associations between IBD and dementia. CONCLUSION Our study did not provide genetic evidence for a causal association between IBD and dementia risk. The increased risk of dementia observed in observational studies may be attributed to unobserved confounding factors or detection bias.
Humans ; Mendelian Randomization Analysis ; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/complications* ; Dementia/etiology* ; Observational Studies as Topic ; Genome-Wide Association Study

Objective:To analyze the differences in clinicopathological features of colon cancers and survival between patients with right- versus left-sided colon cancers.Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study. Information on patients with colon cancer from January 2016 to August 2020 was collected from the prospective registry database at Peking Union Medical College Hospital . Primary tumors located in the cecum, ascending colon, and proximal two‐thirds of the transverse colon were defined as right-sided colon cancers (RCCs), whereas primary tumors located in the distal third of the transverse colon, descending colon, or sigmoid colon were defined as left‐sided colon cancers (LCCs). Clinicopathological features were compared using the χ 2 test or Mann‐Whitney U test. Survival was estimated by Kaplan‐Meier curves and the log‐rank test. Factors that differed significantly between the two groups were identified by multivariate survival analyses performed with the Cox proportional hazards function. One propensity score matching was performed to eliminate the effects of confounding factors. Results:The study cohort comprised 856 patients, with TNM Stage I disease, 391 (45.7%) with Stage II, and 336 (39.3%) with Stage III, including 442 (51.6%) with LCC and 414 (48.4%) with RCC and 129 (15.1%). Defective mismatch repair (dMMR) was identified in 139 patients (16.2%). Compared with RCC, the proportion of men (274/442 [62.0%] vs. 224/414 [54.1%], χ 2=5.462, P=0.019), body mass index (24.2 [21.9, 26.6] kg/m 2 vs. 23.2 [21.3, 25.5] kg/m 2, U=78,789.0, P<0.001), and well/moderately differentiated cancer (412/442 [93.2%] vs. 344/414 [83.1%], χ 2=22.266, P<0.001) were higher in the LCC than the RCC group. In contrast, the proportion of dMMR (40/442 [9.0%] vs. 99/414 [23.9%], χ 2=34.721, P<0.001) and combined vascular invasion (106/442[24.0%] vs. 125/414[30.2%], χ 2=4.186, P=0.041) were lower in the LCC than RCC group. The median follow‐up time for all patients was 48 (range 33, 59) months. The log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) ( P=0.668) or overall survival (OS) ( P=0.828) between patients with LCC versus RCC. Cox proportional hazards model showed that dMMR was significantly associated with a longer DFS (HR=0.419, 95%CI: 0.204?0.862, P=0.018), whereas a higher proportion of T3‐4 (HR=2.178, 95%CI: 1.089?4.359, P=0.028), N+ (HR=2.126, 95%CI: 1.443?3.133, P<0.001), and perineural invasion (HR=1.835, 95%CI: 1.115?3.020, P=0.017) were associated with poor DFS. Tumor location was not associated with DFS or OS (all P>0.05). Subsequent analysis showed that RCC patients with dMMR had longer DFS than did RCC patients with pMMR (HR=0.338, 95%CI: 0.146?0.786, P=0.012). However, the difference in OS between the two groups was not statistically significant (HR=0.340, 95%CI:0.103?1.119, P=0.076). After propensity score matching for independent risk factors for DFS, the log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in DFS ( P=0.343) or OS ( P=0.658) between patients with LCC versus RCC, whereas patient with dMMR had better DFS ( P=0.047) and OS ( P=0.040) than did patients with pMMR. Conclusions:Tumor location is associated with differences in clinicopathological features; however, this has no impact on survival. dMMR status is significantly associated with longer survival: this association may be stronger in RCC patients.

Objective:To explore the impact on safety and prognosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer participating in surgical clinical research.Methods:This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a randomized controlled trial (RELARC study) conducted by the colorectal surgery group at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in which laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) was compared with D2 radical resection for the management of right-sided colon cancer. The eligibility criteria were age 18–75 years, biopsy-proven colon adenocarcinoma, tumor located between the cecum and right 1/3 of the transverse colon, enhanced chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans suggesting tumor stage T2–T4N0M0 or TanyN+ M0, and having undergone radical surgical treatment from January 2016 to December 2019. Exclusion factors included multiple primary colorectal cancers, preoperative stage T1N0 or enlarged central lymph nodes, tumor involving surrounding organs requiring their resection, definite distant metastasis or otherwise unable to undergo R0 resection, history of any other malignant tumors within previous 5 years, intestinal obstruction, perforation, or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring emergency surgery, and assessed as unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery. Patients who had participated in the RELARC study were included in the RELARC group, whereas those who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in the RELAEC study were included in the control group. The main indicators studied were the patient's baseline data, surgery and perioperative conditions, pathological characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and postoperative follow-up (including average frequency of follow-up within the first 3 years) and survival (including 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) and 3-year overall survival rate (OS). Differences in these indicators between the RELARC and control groups were compared.Results:The study cohort comprised 290 patients, 173 in the RELARC group (RELARC-CME group, 82; RELARC-D2 group, 91) and 117 in the control group (CME control group, 72; D2 control group, 45). There was a significantly higher proportion of overweight patients (BMI ≥24 kg/m 2) in the RELARC-CME than in the CME control group (67.1% [55/82] vs. 33.3% [24/72], χ 2=17.469, P<0.001). There were no other statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (all P>0.05). No significant disparities were found between the CME and D2 groups in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, combined organ resection, intraoperative blood transfusion, or intraoperative complications (all P>0.05). There was a trend toward Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications in the RELARC-CME group (24.4% [20/82]) than in the CME control group (18.1% [13/72]); however, this difference was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.914, P=0.339). Similarly, the difference in this rate did not differ significantly between the RELARC-D2 group (25.3% [23/91]) and D2 control group (24.4% [11/45], χ 2=0.011, P=0.916). The median duration of postoperative follow-up was significantly shorter in the RELARC groups than in the corresponding control groups. Specifically, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-CME and 7.2 (6.0, 9.0) months in the CME control group ( Z=-10.608, P<0.001). Similarly, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-D2 group as opposed to 8.3 (6.6, 9.0) months in the D2 control group ( Z=-10.595, P<0.001). The 3-year DFS rate (91.5%) and OS rate (96.3%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-CME group than in the CME control group (84.7% and 90.3%, respectively). The 3-year DFS rate (87.9%) and OS rate (96.7%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-D2 group than in the D2 control group (81.8% and 88.6%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Subgroup analysis according to pathological stage revealed that patients in the RELARC-D2 group with pN0 stage achieved a significantly superior 3-year OS rate than did those in the D2 control group (100% vs. 88.9%, P=0.008). We identified no statistically significant differences in survival rates between the remaining subgroups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:A high-quality surgical clinical trial with close follow-up can achieve perioperative safety and a trend toward improved survival outcomes.

Objective:To analyze the differences in clinicopathological features of colon cancers and survival between patients with right- versus left-sided colon cancers.Methods:This was a retrospective cohort study. Information on patients with colon cancer from January 2016 to August 2020 was collected from the prospective registry database at Peking Union Medical College Hospital . Primary tumors located in the cecum, ascending colon, and proximal two‐thirds of the transverse colon were defined as right-sided colon cancers (RCCs), whereas primary tumors located in the distal third of the transverse colon, descending colon, or sigmoid colon were defined as left‐sided colon cancers (LCCs). Clinicopathological features were compared using the χ 2 test or Mann‐Whitney U test. Survival was estimated by Kaplan‐Meier curves and the log‐rank test. Factors that differed significantly between the two groups were identified by multivariate survival analyses performed with the Cox proportional hazards function. One propensity score matching was performed to eliminate the effects of confounding factors. Results:The study cohort comprised 856 patients, with TNM Stage I disease, 391 (45.7%) with Stage II, and 336 (39.3%) with Stage III, including 442 (51.6%) with LCC and 414 (48.4%) with RCC and 129 (15.1%). Defective mismatch repair (dMMR) was identified in 139 patients (16.2%). Compared with RCC, the proportion of men (274/442 [62.0%] vs. 224/414 [54.1%], χ 2=5.462, P=0.019), body mass index (24.2 [21.9, 26.6] kg/m 2 vs. 23.2 [21.3, 25.5] kg/m 2, U=78,789.0, P<0.001), and well/moderately differentiated cancer (412/442 [93.2%] vs. 344/414 [83.1%], χ 2=22.266, P<0.001) were higher in the LCC than the RCC group. In contrast, the proportion of dMMR (40/442 [9.0%] vs. 99/414 [23.9%], χ 2=34.721, P<0.001) and combined vascular invasion (106/442[24.0%] vs. 125/414[30.2%], χ 2=4.186, P=0.041) were lower in the LCC than RCC group. The median follow‐up time for all patients was 48 (range 33, 59) months. The log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in disease-free survival (DFS) ( P=0.668) or overall survival (OS) ( P=0.828) between patients with LCC versus RCC. Cox proportional hazards model showed that dMMR was significantly associated with a longer DFS (HR=0.419, 95%CI: 0.204?0.862, P=0.018), whereas a higher proportion of T3‐4 (HR=2.178, 95%CI: 1.089?4.359, P=0.028), N+ (HR=2.126, 95%CI: 1.443?3.133, P<0.001), and perineural invasion (HR=1.835, 95%CI: 1.115?3.020, P=0.017) were associated with poor DFS. Tumor location was not associated with DFS or OS (all P>0.05). Subsequent analysis showed that RCC patients with dMMR had longer DFS than did RCC patients with pMMR (HR=0.338, 95%CI: 0.146?0.786, P=0.012). However, the difference in OS between the two groups was not statistically significant (HR=0.340, 95%CI:0.103?1.119, P=0.076). After propensity score matching for independent risk factors for DFS, the log‐rank test revealed no significant differences in DFS ( P=0.343) or OS ( P=0.658) between patients with LCC versus RCC, whereas patient with dMMR had better DFS ( P=0.047) and OS ( P=0.040) than did patients with pMMR. Conclusions:Tumor location is associated with differences in clinicopathological features; however, this has no impact on survival. dMMR status is significantly associated with longer survival: this association may be stronger in RCC patients.

Objective:To explore the impact on safety and prognosis in patients with right-sided colon cancer participating in surgical clinical research.Methods:This retrospective cohort study utilized data from a randomized controlled trial (RELARC study) conducted by the colorectal surgery group at Peking Union Medical College Hospital in which laparoscopic complete mesocolic excision (CME) was compared with D2 radical resection for the management of right-sided colon cancer. The eligibility criteria were age 18–75 years, biopsy-proven colon adenocarcinoma, tumor located between the cecum and right 1/3 of the transverse colon, enhanced chest, abdomen, and pelvic CT scans suggesting tumor stage T2–T4N0M0 or TanyN+ M0, and having undergone radical surgical treatment from January 2016 to December 2019. Exclusion factors included multiple primary colorectal cancers, preoperative stage T1N0 or enlarged central lymph nodes, tumor involving surrounding organs requiring their resection, definite distant metastasis or otherwise unable to undergo R0 resection, history of any other malignant tumors within previous 5 years, intestinal obstruction, perforation, or gastrointestinal bleeding requiring emergency surgery, and assessed as unsuitable for laparoscopic surgery. Patients who had participated in the RELARC study were included in the RELARC group, whereas those who met the inclusion criteria but refused to participate in the RELAEC study were included in the control group. The main indicators studied were the patient's baseline data, surgery and perioperative conditions, pathological characteristics, adjuvant treatment, and postoperative follow-up (including average frequency of follow-up within the first 3 years) and survival (including 3-year disease-free survival rate (DFS) and 3-year overall survival rate (OS). Differences in these indicators between the RELARC and control groups were compared.Results:The study cohort comprised 290 patients, 173 in the RELARC group (RELARC-CME group, 82; RELARC-D2 group, 91) and 117 in the control group (CME control group, 72; D2 control group, 45). There was a significantly higher proportion of overweight patients (BMI ≥24 kg/m 2) in the RELARC-CME than in the CME control group (67.1% [55/82] vs. 33.3% [24/72], χ 2=17.469, P<0.001). There were no other statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics (all P>0.05). No significant disparities were found between the CME and D2 groups in terms of operation duration, intraoperative blood loss, rate of conversion to open surgery, combined organ resection, intraoperative blood transfusion, or intraoperative complications (all P>0.05). There was a trend toward Clavien–Dindo grade II or higher postoperative complications in the RELARC-CME group (24.4% [20/82]) than in the CME control group (18.1% [13/72]); however, this difference was not statistically significant (χ 2=0.914, P=0.339). Similarly, the difference in this rate did not differ significantly between the RELARC-D2 group (25.3% [23/91]) and D2 control group (24.4% [11/45], χ 2=0.011, P=0.916). The median duration of postoperative follow-up was significantly shorter in the RELARC groups than in the corresponding control groups. Specifically, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-CME and 7.2 (6.0, 9.0) months in the CME control group ( Z=-10.608, P<0.001). Similarly, the median duration of follow-up was 4.5 (4.5, 4.5) months in the RELARC-D2 group as opposed to 8.3 (6.6, 9.0) months in the D2 control group ( Z=-10.595, P<0.001). The 3-year DFS rate (91.5%) and OS rate (96.3%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-CME group than in the CME control group (84.7% and 90.3%, respectively). The 3-year DFS rate (87.9%) and OS rate (96.7%) tended to be higher in the RELARC-D2 group than in the D2 control group (81.8% and 88.6%, respectively); however, these differences were not statistically significant (all P>0.05). Subgroup analysis according to pathological stage revealed that patients in the RELARC-D2 group with pN0 stage achieved a significantly superior 3-year OS rate than did those in the D2 control group (100% vs. 88.9%, P=0.008). We identified no statistically significant differences in survival rates between the remaining subgroups (all P>0.05). Conclusions:A high-quality surgical clinical trial with close follow-up can achieve perioperative safety and a trend toward improved survival outcomes.