Objective:Micro-and nanostructures with sharp disordered and rounded ordered features were fabricated on titanium surfaces,respectively,and their osteogenic potential was evaluated both in vitro and in vivo.Methods:Sharp disordered titanium surfaces(SLA-Ti)and rounded ordered titanium surfaces(Laser-Ti)were prepared using sandblast acid etching and high-repeti-tion-rate femtosecond laser,respectively.Smooth titanium(Ti)was used as the control group,SLA-Ti and Laser-Ti were used as the experimental groups.Characterization was conducted using scanning electron microscopy coupled with hydrophilicity assess-ments.The adhesion,elongation,and osteogenic differentiation capabilities of osteoblasts in vitro were evaluated through cell mor-phology observations,cytoskeletal fluorescence staining,cell viability assays,and PCR experiments.Osteogenic potential in vivo of rabbits was assessed through Micro CT scans and histological staining(HE and Masson).Results:The surface of Laser-Ti exhibits a rounded,ordered,multi-scale micro-and nano-morphology with the best hydrophilicity(P＜0.01).In vitro,it promotes cell adhe-sion,extension,and osteogenic differentiation,while in vivo,it enhances bone regeneration around the implants.Overall,a trend of Laser-Ti＞SLA-Ti＞Ti is observed,with a higher bone volume fraction(BV/TV)(P＜0.05),greater trabecular thickness(Tb.Th)(P＜0.05),an increased number of trabeculae(Tb.N)(P＜0.05),and a larger area of bone around the implants(P＜0.05).Conclusion:The rounded ordered micro-and nano-structures fabricated using high-repetition-rate fem-tosecond laser demonstrate enhanced osteoinductive capac-ity both in vitro and in vivo.

Objective:Micro-and nanostructures with sharp disordered and rounded ordered features were fabricated on titanium surfaces,respectively,and their osteogenic potential was evaluated both in vitro and in vivo.Methods:Sharp disordered titanium surfaces(SLA-Ti)and rounded ordered titanium surfaces(Laser-Ti)were prepared using sandblast acid etching and high-repeti-tion-rate femtosecond laser,respectively.Smooth titanium(Ti)was used as the control group,SLA-Ti and Laser-Ti were used as the experimental groups.Characterization was conducted using scanning electron microscopy coupled with hydrophilicity assess-ments.The adhesion,elongation,and osteogenic differentiation capabilities of osteoblasts in vitro were evaluated through cell mor-phology observations,cytoskeletal fluorescence staining,cell viability assays,and PCR experiments.Osteogenic potential in vivo of rabbits was assessed through Micro CT scans and histological staining(HE and Masson).Results:The surface of Laser-Ti exhibits a rounded,ordered,multi-scale micro-and nano-morphology with the best hydrophilicity(P＜0.01).In vitro,it promotes cell adhe-sion,extension,and osteogenic differentiation,while in vivo,it enhances bone regeneration around the implants.Overall,a trend of Laser-Ti＞SLA-Ti＞Ti is observed,with a higher bone volume fraction(BV/TV)(P＜0.05),greater trabecular thickness(Tb.Th)(P＜0.05),an increased number of trabeculae(Tb.N)(P＜0.05),and a larger area of bone around the implants(P＜0.05).Conclusion:The rounded ordered micro-and nano-structures fabricated using high-repetition-rate fem-tosecond laser demonstrate enhanced osteoinductive capac-ity both in vitro and in vivo.

Objective:To analyze the real clinical effects and prognosis of neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer.Methods:Two hundred and one patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer who underwent different neoadjuvant treatments at Nanchong Central Hospital of Sichuan Province from January 2019 to December 2021 were retrospective analyzed. Patients were divided into neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group ( n=87), neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( n=69), and neoadjuvant chemotherapy group ( n=45) according to the different methods of neoadjuvant therapy. Patients underwent surgical treatment 4-6 weeks after completing neoadjuvant therapy. The postoperative pathological response of three groups of patients were compared. Kaplan-Meier method was used to draw survival curves. Log-rank tests were performed to analyze overall survival (OS) rate, local recurrence-free survival (LRFS) rate, and distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) rate in three groups of patients. Results:The pathological complete response rates of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group, neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group and neoadjuvant chemotherapy group were 33.3% (29/87), 40.6% (28/69) and 13.3% (6/45), respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=9.68, P=0.008). The pathological complete response rates in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group were higher than that in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, with statistically significant differences ( χ2=6.09, P=0.014; χ2=9.66, P=0.002) ; there was no statistically significant difference between the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( χ2=0.87, P=0.351). The major pathologic response rates of the three groups were 58.6% (51/87), 59.4% (41/69) and 31.1% (14/45), respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=10.89, P=0.004). The major pathologic response rates of the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group were significantly higher than that of the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, with statistically significant differences ( χ2=8.98, P=0.003; χ2=8.74, P=0.003) ; there was no statistically significant difference between the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( χ2=0.10, P=0.920). The 3-year OS rates of the three groups were 43.7%, 42.0% and 33.3%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference ( χ2=0.79, P=0.347). The 3-year LRFS rates of the three groups were 67.8%, 66.7% and 46.7%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( χ2=7.58, P=0.023), the LRFS rates in the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group were significantly higher than that in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group, with statistically significant differences ( χ2=4.17, P=0.041; χ2=4.15, P=0.042) ; there was no statistically significant difference in LRFS rates between the neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy group and the neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy group ( χ2=0.01, P=0.923). The 3-year DMFS rates of the three groups were 37.9%, 37.7% and 28.9%, respectively, with no statistically significant difference ( χ2=0.14, P=0.707) . Conclusion:Different neoadjuvant therapies have different therapeutic effects in the treatment of locally advanced resectable esophageal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and neoadjuvant immunochemotherapy can achieve a better pathological response rates and LRFS rates.