This study reviews recent publications on the biomechanical causes and treatment of flat foot,through searching PubMed,Web of Science,CNKI,Wanfang and other databases.The reasons for the formation of flat foot include congenital factors and acquired factors,while the treatment methods mainly include orthopedic insoles,physical therapy,surgical therapy and exercise therapy.These methods,to a certain extent,can correct foot structural abnormalities,optimize biomechanical properties and improve foot stability and range of motion.For future research,the advanced imaging and simulation technology will be used for accurate assessment,the application of novel materials and non-surgical therapies will relieve long-term symptoms,genetic researches will promote the development of early diagnosis and personalized treatment,and the use of intelligent orthosis will realize real-time monitoring and dynamic adjustment,to provide more and more effective methods and means for the evaluation,intervention and treatment of flat foot.

This study reviews recent publications on the biomechanical causes and treatment of flat foot,through searching PubMed,Web of Science,CNKI,Wanfang and other databases.The reasons for the formation of flat foot include congenital factors and acquired factors,while the treatment methods mainly include orthopedic insoles,physical therapy,surgical therapy and exercise therapy.These methods,to a certain extent,can correct foot structural abnormalities,optimize biomechanical properties and improve foot stability and range of motion.For future research,the advanced imaging and simulation technology will be used for accurate assessment,the application of novel materials and non-surgical therapies will relieve long-term symptoms,genetic researches will promote the development of early diagnosis and personalized treatment,and the use of intelligent orthosis will realize real-time monitoring and dynamic adjustment,to provide more and more effective methods and means for the evaluation,intervention and treatment of flat foot.

Objective:To evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided selective varices devascularization (EUS-SVD) for the treatment of esophagogastric varices.Methods:A total of 43 cases of liver cirrhosis with esophageal and gastric varices at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from February to December 2021 were included in a retrospective cohort study. The cases were divided into two treatment groups based on endoscopic treatment: EUS-SVD group ( n=22) and conventional endoscopic sclerosant injection group (conventional gastroscopy group, n=21). The doses of sclerosants and tissue glue, effective rate of esophageal varice treatment within 2 months after surgery, rebleeding rate within 3 months after surgery, and adverse reactions were compared. Results:The differences in terms of mean patient age, gender composition, etiology of liver cirrhosis, Child-Pugh classification of liver function, classification of esophageal varices, composition of endoscopic treatment indications, and mean maximum diameter of gastric varices were not statistically significant between the two groups ( P>0.05), indicating the comparability of baseline data. Perforating veins outside the gastric wall of gastric varices could be detected during the procedure in the EUS-SVD group, and disappearance of gastric varices after injection treatment could be determined, while these two indicators could not be detected in the conventional gastroscopy group. The amounts of sclerosing agents and tissue adhesives used in the EUS-SVD group were 7.54±3.10 mL and 1.30±0.57 mL, respectively, while the corresponding amounts in the conventional gastroscopy group were 7.57±3.50 mL ( t=0.026, P=0.980) and 1.38±0.67 mL ( t=-0.452, P=0.654), respectively. The effective treatment rate for esophageal varice within 2 months after surgery was 63.6% (14/22) in the EUS-SVD group and 52.4% (11/21) in the conventional gastroscopy group, but the difference was not statistically significant ( χ2=0.559, P=0.455). The rebleeding rate within 3 months after surgery was 4.5% (1/22) in the EUS-SVD group, significantly lower than the rate of 33.3% (7/21) in the conventional gastroscopy group ( P=0.021). Neither group experienced events of ectopic embolism or death. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of postoperative pain, fever, nausea and vomiting, or rebleeding rate within 72 hours after surgery ( P>0.05). The incidence of gastric fundus ulcers was 9.1% (2/22) in the EUS-SVD group, significantly lower than the rate of 42.9% (9/21) in the conventional gastroscopy group ( χ2=6.435, P=0.011). Conclusion:EUS-SVD treatment for esophagogastric varices is safe and effective. It can clearly display the deep-seated intramural vessels of the gastric wall, measure the diameter of the blood vessels, accurately inject tissue glue, occlude the varicose veins and perforating vessels, and reduce the occurrence of postoperative ulcers and rebleeding.

Objective:To compare the accuracy of endoscopy and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) combined with Indian ink marking in locating injection sites for gastric varices, and to explore the influence of the features of gastric varices under endoscopy on the injection sites.Methods:Consecutive patients with gastric varices scheduled for EUS-guided glue injection therapy at the First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from August 2021 to October 2022 were perspectively included. Firstly, gastric varices were assessed under endoscopy, where the size of the veins were estimated while the injection site was preliminarily judged during the procedure. Then EUS was used to identify perforating feeding veins and mark injection sites with Indian ink. After tissue adhesive was injected into identified varices, the change of varices after injection was observed and the marking was identified under endoscopy again. The clarity of the markinges was confirmed and the consistency between EUS-guided Indian ink mark and that under endoscopy was compared. Patients were divided into anastomosis group and non-anastomosis group based on marking consistency to investigate the effect of gastric varices features on the location of injection sites under endoscopy. Treatment efficacy and postoperative adverse events were counted.Results:Finally, 34 patients were included and all of them underwent successful marking under EUS guidance without complications. A total of 40 marker sites were clearly visible with Indian ink staining under endoscopy. The difference in distribution between the anastomotic group and non-anastomotic group marker points between EUS and endoscopy was statistically significant ( χ2=9.103, P=0.003). Vascular occlusion rate was 100.00% (40/40). There were 13 adverse events after operation, mainly fever, abdominal pain and nausea, and no serious adverse events such as allergy and ectopic embolization occurred. There was significant difference between the blood vessel diameter of the anastomotic group (10.84±4.02 mm) and that of the non-anastomotic group (8.80±1.61 mm, t=1.870, P=0.031). The percentage of raised vessels in the anastomotic group was 88.00% (22/25), higher than that in the non-anastomotic group [53.33% (8/15)], and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2=6.009, P=0.024). Conclusion:Accuracy in positioning under endoscopy is influenced by variceal diameter and bulge shape, being less precise in varices with smaller diameters and less pronounced bulges.