Objective To explore the influence of extracting different types of mandibular mesially impacted third molars on the prox-imal contact strength(PCS)of adjacent teeth.Methods One hundred and ten cases of mandibular mesially impacted third molars were divided into high impacted group(40 cases),middle impacted group(40 cases)and low impacted group(30 cases).The PCS of the adjacent teeth of impacted teeth(between the mandibular second premolar L5 and the mandibular first molar L6,and between the man-dibular first molar L6 and the mandibular second molar L7)were measured by high-precision dynamometer before and after operation,and the mean and standard deviation were statistically measured.The differences of PCS before and after extraction in each group were analyzed.Results Without considering the classification of mesial impacted teeth,extraction of mandibular third molars led to the de-crease in PCS of L5/L6 and L6/L7.In the high-middle impacted groups,the extraction of mandibular third molars led to the decrease in PCS of L5/L6 and L6/L7,while in the low impacted group,there was no statistical difference between the changes in PCS of L5/L6 and L6/L7.Conclusion The extraction of high-middle mandibular mesially impacted third molars can significantly reduce the adjacent teeth's PCS,but the extraction of low mandibular mesially impacted third molars has no significant effect on the adjacent teeth's PCS.

Objective:To investigate the treatment efficacy of adjuvant anti-VEGF/VEGFR targeted therapy in patients with non-metastatic (cM 0) non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma and tumor thrombus (nccRCC-VTT). Methods:This retrospective study enrolled 26 patients who underwent radical nephrectomy combined with inferior vena cava tumor thrombectomy at Peking University Third Hospital from January 2014 to July 2021. Patients were divided into adjuvant therapy group (10 cases) and control group (16 cases)based on the use of postoperative targeted therapy. The distribution of baseline clinical characteristics in the adjuvant therapy group and the control group were as follows: gender (6 males and 4 females in the adjuvant therapy group, 12 males and 4 females in the control group, P=0.66), age (56.2±18.5 years old in the adjuvant therapy group; 54.6±14.5 years old in the control group; P=0.80), BMI(24.0±3.5 in the adjuvant therapy group; 24.3±3.3 in the control group; P=0.80), presence of clinical symptoms (8 cases in the adjuvant therapy group; 15 cases in the control group; P=0.54), tumor laterality(6 cases on the left and 4 cases on the right in the adjuvant therapy group; 6 cases on the left and 10 cases on the right in the control group; P=0.42), location of tumor thrombus (2 cases with renal vein tumor thrombus and 8 cases with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus in the adjuvant therapy group; 2 cases with renal vein tumor thrombus and 14 cases with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus in the control group; P=0.67), ASA classification (2 cases in ASA class 1 and 8 cases in ASA class 2 in the adjuvant therapy group; 2 cases in ASA class 1 and 14 cases in ASA class 2 in the control group; P=0.63), surgical approach (7 minimally invasive surgeries and 3 open surgeries in the adjuvant therapy group; 9 minimally invasive surgeries and 7 open surgeries in the control group; P=0.68), conversion to open surgery (2 cases in the adjuvant therapy group; 2 cases in the control group; P=0.63), operation time [287.5(222.2, 456.0) minutes in the adjuvant therapy group; 344.0(287.8, 482.5) minutes in the control group; P=0.34), blood loss [400.0(250.0, 600.0)ml in the adjuvant therapy group; 575.0(175.0, 800.0)ml in the control group; P=0.63), Clavien-Dindo classification of postoperative complications (8 cases with no postoperative complications, 2 cases with level 1-2 complications, and 0 cases with level ≥3 complications in the adjuvant therapy group; 10 cases with no postoperative complications, 4 cases with level 1-2 complications, and 2 cases with level ≥3 complications in the control group; P=0.68), postoperative hospital stay (8.5 [5.5, 11.5] days in the adjuvant therapy group; 7.5 [6.0, 13.0] days in the control group; P=1.00), maximum tumor diameter[ (9.2±2.7)cm in the adjuvant therapy group; (8.9±3.3)cm in the control group; P=0.81], sarcomatoid differentiation (0 cases in the adjuvant therapy group; 1 case in the control group; P=1.00), perinephric fat invasion (2 cases in the adjuvant therapy group; 7 cases in the control group; P=0.40), tumor necrosis (6 cases in the adjuvant therapy group; 5 cases in the control group; P=0.23), pathological subtype (1 case of PRCC type 1, 6 cases of PRCC type 2, and 3 cases of TFE3 rearrangement RCC in the adjuvant therapy group; 2 cases of PRCC type 1, 10 cases of PRCC type 2, and 1 case each of oncocytic PRCC, TFE3 rearrangement RCC, FH-deficient RCC, and unclassified RCC in the control group; P=0.72), WHO/ISUP nuclear grade (10 cases of grades 3-4 in the adjuvant therapy group; 4 cases of grades 1-2 and 12 cases of grades 3-4 in the control group; P=0.14), invasion of tumor thrombus into the vessel wall (5 cases in the adjuvant therapy group; 5 cases in the control group; P=0.43), T stage (1 case of T 3a, 3 cases of T 3b, 5 cases of T 3c, and 1 case of T 4 in the adjuvant therapy group; 1 case of T 3a, 4 cases of T 3b, 10 cases of T 3c, and 1 case of T 4 in the control group; P=1.00), and positive lymph nodes metastasis(3 cases in the adjuvant therapy group; 0 cases in the control group; P<0.05). The recommended doses for sunitinib, axitinib, and pazopanib are 50mg qd, 5mg q12h, and 800mg qd, respectively. The primary endpoint of this study was disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Statistical analyses were performed using R v4.2.2. Confounding factors were adjusted using propensity score weighting. Results:The median follow-up time for DFS was 29 months in the adjuvant therapy group and not reached in the control group, while median follow-up time for OS was 28 and 26 months, respectively. In the univariate Cox regression analysis, there were no statistically significant difference in the impact of all baseline characteristics and exposure factors on DFS and OS between the two groups. In survival analysis, there were no significant difference between DFS and OS curves of patients in the adjuvant therapy group and the control group (DFS, P=0.62; OS, P=0.74). The median DFS of patients in the adjuvant therapy group and the control group were 17 and 19 months, respectively, while the median OS was 43 and 27 months. After adjusting for confounding factors, the median DFS of patients in the adjuvant therapy group and the control group were 26 and 12 months, respectively, and the median OS remained 43 and 27 months, with no significant difference (DFS, P=0.81; OS, P=0.40). Conclusion:There is currently a lack of definitive evidence for survival benefit from adjuvant anti-VEGF/VEGFR targeted therapy in patients with cM0 nccRCC-VTT after surgery.

Objective To investigate the prevalence of orthostatic hypotension in hypertensive patients aged 80 or over and associated risk factors at level A tertiary hospitals.Methods A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted among very old hypertensive patients (≥ 80 years) at 28level A tertiary hospitals by using questionnaire-based surveys.A total of 1298 hypertensive subjects aged between 80 and 101 years were enrolled in this study.Blood pressures was measured in the supine position and the upright position within three minutes of standing,and 316 patients were assigned to the orthostatic hypotension(OH) group and the other 982 patients to the non-orthostatic hypotension(NOH) group.Additional information was acquired through patients' medical records and the questionnaire.Results The prevalence of OH was 24.3％ (316 cases) There were no significan different betueen OH patienl with NOHones in gender and age.OH patients had higher supine systolic and diastolic blood pressure(P=0.003 and 0.000,respectively),lower standing systolic and diastolic blood pressure(P=0.000 and 0.000,respectively),and higher rates of past coronary heart disease,stroke and renal abnormalities (P =0.037,0.001 and 0.014,respectively) than NOH patients.Logistic regression analysis showed that the prevalence of OH in the patients was positively correlated with supine systolic blood pressure(OR=1.196,CI:1.153-1.242,P=0.000) and supine diastolic blood pressure (OR =1.740,CI:1.602-1.885,P =0.000) and was negatively correlated with standing systolic blood pressure(OR =0.824,CI:0.795-0.855,P=0.000) and standing diastolic blood pressure (OR =0.584,CI:0.539-0.634,P =0.000).Conclusions The prevalence of orthostatic hypotension is high in hypertensive patients aged 80 years or over at level A tertiary hospitals.Poor blood pressure control may increase the risk of orthostatic hypotension.