Eight compounds were isolated and purified from the ethyl acetate part of 70% acetone extract of Rehmannia glutinosa by various chromatographic techniques such as silica gel, MCI gel CHP-20, ODS, Toyopearl HW-40C, combined with TLC and semi-preparative HPLC. Their structures were elucidated by modern spectroscopy techniques (NMR, MS, UV, IR), and identified as neomartynoside A (1), osmanthuside B₆ (2), martynoside (3), isomartynoside (4), (E)-p-hydroxycinnamic acid (5), caffeic acid (6), ferulic acid (7), and methyl caffeate (8). Compound 1 is a new phenylethanol glycoside, which was identified as neomartynoside A. Compound 2 was isolated from Rehmannia glutinosa for the first time. In addition, compounds 2, 6 and 7 significantly increased relative glucose consumption, showing potential hypoglycemic activity.

Macroporous adsorption resin, MCI, Toyopearl HW-40C and silica gel column chromatography combined with the semi-preparative HPLC were used to isolate and purify the water extract of Cornus officinalis. And the structures of compounds were identified by HRESIMS, NMR, IR, UV and ECD. A total of twelve compounds were isolated from the fruits of Cornus officinalis. They were identified as neolignan B (1), 2,3-dihydro-7-methoxy-2-(4′-hydroxy-3′-methoxyphenyl)-3a-O-β-D-xylopyranosyloxymethyl-5-benzofuranpropanol (2), cornucadinoside A (3), 3,4-dihydroxyacetophenone (4), n-butyl gallate (5), 3-hydroxybenzoic acid (6), n-butyl quininate (7), 5-hydroxymaltol (8), 2-furolic acid (9), 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (10), 5-(methoxycarbonyl)-2-pyrrolidone (11), and dimethyl malate (12). Compound 1 is a new biphenyl lignan, named as neolignan B. Compounds 2, 4, 5, 7-9 and 11 were isolated from Cornus officinalis for the first time.

Objective To observe the clinical efficacy of meridian massage in the treatment of lumbar disc herniation(LDH).Methods Between July 2020 and April 2023,82 patients with lumbar disc herniation were selected,including 58 males and 24 females,aged from 23 to 55 years old with an average of(43.76±6.64)years old.According to the different treatment methods,they were divided into observation group and control group with 41 cases in each group.The control group was treated with routine treatment,and the observation group was treated with meridian massage on the basis of routine treatment.In the control group,there were 30 males and 11 females;aged from 22 to 52 years old with an average of(42.27±9.34)years old;the Body mass index(BMI)ranged from 19 to 28 kg·m-2 with an average of(23.82±1.08)kg·m-2;the course of disease ranged from 0.5 to 3.0 years(2.40±0.48)years.There were 28 cases in L4,5 segment and 13 cases in L5S1 segment.In the observation group,there were 28 males and 13 females;the age ranged from 19 to 54 years old(42.19±9.26)years old;the BMI ranged from 18 to 29 kg·m-2 with an average of(23.73±1.15)kg·m-2;the course of disease ranged from 0.6 to 2.8 with an average of(2.56±0.45)years;there were 26 cases in L4,5 segment and 15 cases in L5S1 segment.Visual analogue scale(VAS),Oswestry disability index(ODI),M-JOA score and TCM syndrome score were measured before and after 3 courses of treatment,and the clinical efficacy was evaluated by the standard of curative effect evaluation.Results After treatment,VAS[(3.24±1.45)vs(4.46±0.64)],ODI[(11.45±1.98)％vs(17.21±2.74)％]and TCM symptom score[(2.03±0.27)vs(3.99±0.54)]of the observation group were lower than those of the control group.The score of M-JOA[(23.43±2.61)vs(19.37±1.62)]increased(P＜0.05).The scores of VAS,ODI andTCM symptoms in the observation group were lower than those in the control group,while the scores of M-JOA were higher than those in the control group(P＜0.05).Conclusion Meridian massage is effective in the treatment of LDH,which can effectivelyrelieve low back pain,improve clinical symptoms and increaselumbar function,which is worthy of clinical promotion.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To detect the body surface temperature of the relevant back-shu points in patients with chronic persistent asthma by infrared thermal imaging technology, and observe the specific changes of the body surface temperature of the relevant back-shu points under the condition of lung disease. METHODS: Forty-five patients with chronic persistent asthma (observation group) and 45 healthy subjects (control group) were selected. The body surface temperature of bilateral Feishu (BL 13), Geshu (BL 17), Pishu (BL 20) and Shenshu (BL 23) were measured by BK-MT02A medical infrared thermography. RESULTS: The body surface temperature of bilateral Feishu (BL 13), Geshu (BL 17), Pishu (BL 20) and Shenshu (BL 23) in the observation group was higher than that in the control group (P<0.01, P<0.05). The body surface temperature of bilateral Feishu (BL 13) and Geshu (BL 17) was higher than that of ipsilateral Pishu (BL 20) and Shenshu (BL 23) in the two groups (P<0.01, P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in body surface temperature between ipsilateral Feishu (BL 13) and Geshu (BL 17), between ipsilateral Pishu (BL 20) and Shenshu (BL 23) (P>0.05). CONCLUSION The pathological increase of body surface temperature of Feishu (BL 13), Geshu (BL 17), Pishu (BL 20) and Shenshu (BL 23) in patients with chronic persistent asthma indicates that above acupoints have specificity in reflecting lung diseases. The Feishu (BL 13) and Geshu (BL 17), which have significantly increased body surface temperature, not only provide objective basis for the pathological pathogenesis of "deficiency in origin and excess in symptom" in patients with chronic persistent asthma, but also reflect the different expressions of different acupoints on the same meridian for the lung diseases.
Humans ; Temperature ; Asthma/diagnostic imaging* ; Meridians ; Acupuncture Points ; Acupuncture Therapy/methods*

The establishment of limit values for standards of drinking water quality is an important and complex process. This study systematically introduced the methodology of the establishment of standard limit values for drinking water quality and elaborated on the workflow of setting limit values of water quality indicators, principles and methods of selecting water quality indicators, derivation of safety reference values, and establishment of limit values. It also aimed to provide reference and support for the future revision of relevant standards.
Humans ; Water Supply ; Drinking Water ; Reference Standards ; Water Quality ; Water Pollutants, Chemical/analysis*