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.Application of 3D-printed auxiliary guides in adolescent scoliosis surgery.
Dong HOU ; Jian-Tao WEN ; Chen ZHANG ; Jin HUANG ; Chang-Quan DAI ; Kai LI ; Han LENG ; Jing ZHANG ; Shao-Bo YANG ; Xiao-Juan CUI ; Juan WANG ; Xiao-Yun YUAN
China Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2025;38(11):1119-1125
OBJECTIVE:
To investigate the accuracy and safety of pedicle screw placement using 3D-printed auxiliary guides in scoliosis correction surgery for adolescents.
METHODS:
A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical data of 51 patients who underwent posterior scoliosis correction surgery from January 2020 to March 2023. Among them, there were 35 cases of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis and 16 cases of congenital scoliosis. The patients were divided into two groups based on the auxiliary tool used:the 3D-printed auxiliary guide screw placement group (3D printing group) and the free-hand screw placement group (free-hand group, without auxiliary tools). The 3D printing group included 32 patients (12 males and 20 females) with an average age of (12.59±2.60) years;the free-hand group included 19 patients (7 males and 12 females) with an average age of (14.58±3.53) years. The two groups were compared in terms of screw placement accuracy and safety, spinal correction rate, intraoperative blood loss, number of intraoperative fluoroscopies, operation time, hospital stay, and preoperative and last follow-up scores of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 (SRS-22) questionnaire.
RESULTS:
A total of 707 pedicle screws were placed in the two groups, with 441 screws in the 3D printing group and 266 screws in the free-hand group. All patients in both groups successfully completed the surgery. There was a statistically significant difference in operation time between the two groups (P<0.05). The screw placement accuracy rate of the 3D printing group was 95.46% (421/441), among which the Grade A placement rate was 89.34% (394/441);the screw placement accuracy rate of the free-hand group was 86.47% (230/266), with a Grade A placement rate of 73.31% (195/266). There were statistically significant differences in the accuracy of Grade A, B, and C screw placements between the two groups (P<0.05), while no statistically significant differences were observed in intraoperative blood loss, number of fluoroscopies, correction rate, or hospital stay (P>0.05). In the SRS-22 questionnaire scores, the scores of functional status and activity ability, self-image, mental status, and pain of patients in each group at the last follow-up were significantly improved compared with those before surgery (P<0.05), but there were no statistically significant differences in all scores between the two groups (P>0.05).
CONCLUSION
In scoliosis correction surgery, compared with traditional free-hand screw placement, the use of 3D-printed auxiliary guides for screw placement significantly improves the accuracy and safety of screw placement and shortens the operation time.
Humans
;
Male
;
Scoliosis/surgery*
;
Female
;
Adolescent
;
Printing, Three-Dimensional
;
Retrospective Studies
;
Pedicle Screws
;
Child
7.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.
8.Safety of high-carbohydrate fluid diet 2 h versus overnight fasting before non-emergency endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A single-blind, multicenter, randomized controlled trial
Wenbo MENG ; W. Joseph LEUNG ; Zhenyu WANG ; Qiyong LI ; Leida ZHANG ; Kai ZHANG ; Xuefeng WANG ; Meng WANG ; Qi WANG ; Yingmei SHAO ; Jijun ZHANG ; Ping YUE ; Lei ZHANG ; Kexiang ZHU ; Xiaoliang ZHU ; Hui ZHANG ; Senlin HOU ; Kailin CAI ; Hao SUN ; Ping XUE ; Wei LIU ; Haiping WANG ; Li ZHANG ; Songming DING ; Zhiqing YANG ; Ming ZHANG ; Hao WENG ; Qingyuan WU ; Bendong CHEN ; Tiemin JIANG ; Yingkai WANG ; Lichao ZHANG ; Ke WU ; Xue YANG ; Zilong WEN ; Chun LIU ; Long MIAO ; Zhengfeng WANG ; Jiajia LI ; Xiaowen YAN ; Fangzhao WANG ; Lingen ZHANG ; Mingzhen BAI ; Ningning MI ; Xianzhuo ZHANG ; Wence ZHOU ; Jinqiu YUAN ; Azumi SUZUKI ; Kiyohito TANAKA ; Jiankang LIU ; Ula NUR ; Elisabete WEIDERPASS ; Xun LI
Chinese Medical Journal 2024;137(12):1437-1446
Background::Although overnight fasting is recommended prior to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), the benefits and safety of high-carbohydrate fluid diet (CFD) intake 2 h before ERCP remain unclear. This study aimed to analyze whether high-CFD intake 2 h before ERCP can be safe and accelerate patients’ recovery.Methods::This prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial involved 15 tertiary ERCP centers. A total of 1330 patients were randomized into CFD group ( n = 665) and fasting group ( n = 665). The CFD group received 400 mL of maltodextrin orally 2 h before ERCP, while the control group abstained from food/water overnight (>6 h) before ERCP. All ERCP procedures were performed using deep sedation with intravenous propofol. The investigators were blinded but not the patients. The primary outcomes included postoperative fatigue and abdominal pain score, and the secondary outcomes included complications and changes in metabolic indicators. The outcomes were analyzed according to a modified intention-to-treat principle. Results::The post-ERCP fatigue scores were significantly lower at 4 h (4.1 ± 2.6 vs. 4.8 ± 2.8, t = 4.23, P <0.001) and 20 h (2.4 ± 2.1 vs. 3.4 ± 2.4, t= 7.94, P <0.001) in the CFD group, with least-squares mean differences of 0.48 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26–0.71, P <0.001) and 0.76 (95% CI: 0.57–0.95, P <0.001), respectively. The 4-h pain scores (2.1 ± 1.7 vs. 2.2 ± 1.7, t = 2.60, P = 0.009, with a least-squares mean difference of 0.21 [95% CI: 0.05–0.37]) and positive urine ketone levels (7.7% [39/509] vs. 15.4% [82/533], χ2 = 15.13, P <0.001) were lower in the CFD group. The CFD group had significantly less cholangitis (2.1% [13/634] vs. 4.0% [26/658], χ2 = 3.99, P = 0.046) but not pancreatitis (5.5% [35/634] vs. 6.5% [43/658], χ2 = 0.59, P = 0.444). Subgroup analysis revealed that CFD reduced the incidence of complications in patients with native papilla (odds ratio [OR]: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.39–0.95, P = 0.028) in the multivariable models. Conclusion::Ingesting 400 mL of CFD 2 h before ERCP is safe, with a reduction in post-ERCP fatigue, abdominal pain, and cholangitis during recovery.Trail Registration::ClinicalTrials.gov, No. NCT03075280.
9.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.
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