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 explore the feasibility and efficacy of laparoscopic transcystic drainage and common bile duct exploration in the treatment of patients with difficult biliary stones. METHODS: Between April 2020 and December 2021, eighteen patients with difficult biliary stones received laparoscopic transcystic drainage (C-tube technique) and common bile duct exploration. The clinical characteristics and outcomes were retrospectively collected. The safety and effectiveness of laparoscopic transcystic drainage and common bile duct exploration were analyzed. RESULTS: Among the eighteen patients with difficult biliary stones, thirteen patients received traditional laparoscopic transcystic drainage, and the remaining five received modified laparoscopic transcystic drainage. The mean surgical duration were (161±59) min (82-279 min), no bile duct stenosis or residual stone was observed in the patients receiving postoperative cholangiography via C-tube. The maximum volume of C-tube drainage was (500±163) mL/d (180-820 mL/d). Excluding three patients with early dislodgement of C-tube, among the fifteen patients with C-tube maintained, the median time of C-tube removal was 8 d (5-12 d). The duration of hospital stay was (12±3) d (7-21 d) for the 18 patients. Five C-tube related adverse events were observed, all of which occurred in the patients with traditional laparoscopic transcystic drainage, including two abnormal position of the C-tube, and three early dislocation of the C-tube. All the 5 adverse events caused no complications. Only one grade one complication occurred, which was in a patient with modified laparoscopic transcystic drainage. The patient demonstrated transient fever after C-tube removal, but there was no bile in the drainage tube and the subsequent CT examination confirmed no bile leakage. The fever spontaneously relieved with conservative observation, and the patient recovered uneventfully with discharge the next day. All the 18 patients were followed up for 1-20 months (median: 9 months). Normal liver function and no recurrence of stone were detected with ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). CONCLUSION Laparoscopic transcystic drainage combined with common bile duct exploration is safe and feasible in the treatment of patients with difficult biliary stones. The short-term effect is good. Modified laparoscopic transcystic drainage approach may reduce the incidence of C-tube dislocation and bile leak.
Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Biliary Tract Surgical Procedures/adverse effects* ; Gallstones/etiology* ; Drainage/methods* ; Laparoscopy/adverse effects* ; Common Bile Duct/surgery*

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether Shenfu Injection (SFI, ) can alleviate post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction by inhibiting the inflammatory response. METHODS: After 8 min of ventricular fibrillation and 2 min of basic life support, 24 pigs were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=8), which were given intravenous bolus injections of SFI (1.0 mL/kg), epinephrine (EP, 0.02 mg/kg) and normal saline (SA), respectively. The animals were sacrificed at 24 h after restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), and serum interleuking-6 (IL-6) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) levels were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA); expressions of Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)/nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) mRNAs and proteins were determined by RT-PCR and Western blot, respectively. RESULTS: Compared with the EP and the SA groups, the ultrastructure of myocardial cells were slightly damaged and the systolic function of the left ventricle was markedly improved in the SFI group at 24 h after ROSC (P<0.05). In addition, compared with the EP and SA groups, the SFI group also showed significantly reduced levels of serum IL-6 and TNF-α, protein and mRNA levels of myocardial NF- κB and TLR4 (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS Activation of TLR4/NF-κB signaling pathway may be involved in the pathological mechanisms of post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction. SFI may block NF-κB-mediated inflammatory response by reducing the activity of NF- κB and the level of TNF-α, thus playing a protective role in post-resuscitation myocardial dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of periodontal endoscope as an adjuvant therapy for the non-surgical periodontal treatment of patients with severe and generalized periodontitis. METHODS: Patients (n=13) were divided into three groups: patients treated with conventional subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) (n=7, 408 sites) (group A), SRP using periodontal endoscope (n=4, 188 sites) (group B) or SRP with periodontal endoscope 3 months after initial SRP (n=2, 142 sites) (group C). Two subgroups were divided into 2 subgroups according to PD at the baseline: 46 mm as subgroup 2. Probing depth (PD), attachment loss (AL), gingival recession (GR) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded. RESULTS: The results of 3 months after treatment showed all PD, AL, and GR values in group A1 were less than those in group B1 (P<0.05), but no significant difference in BOP was found between the two groups. The decrease in PD, BOP in group B2 was more obvious than those in group A2 (P<0.000 1), and the GR values in group B2 were more than those in group A2 (P<0.000 1). But the improvement of AL showed no statistical difference between the two groups (P=0.296 8). In group C1, no significant difference in PD, AL, and GR was observed after endoscopy-assisted therapy, but it was more effective for BOP (P<0.000 1). In group C2, the improvement in PD and AL was significantly different from the improvement in SRP alone (P=0.000 5, P=0.000 2) and was accompanied by more GR (P=0.000 5). CONCLUSIONS In non-surgical treatment of severe and generalized periodontitis, SRP can achieve good therapeutic effect on sites with 4<
PD≤6 mm. For sites with PD>6 mm, the application of periodontal endoscopy can increase the effect, reducing PD and GR, which may be an effective supplement to the current non-surgical periodontal treatment.
Dental Scaling ; Endoscopes ; Follow-Up Studies ; Gingival Hemorrhage ; Humans ; Periodontal Attachment Loss ; Periodontal Index ; Periodontal Pocket ; Periodontitis ; Root Planing ; Treatment Outcome

Objective: Several COVID-19 patients have overlapping comorbidities. The independent role of each component contributing to the risk of COVID-19 is unknown, and how some non-cardiometabolic comorbidities affect the risk of COVID-19 remains unclear. Methods: A retrospective follow-up design was adopted. A total of 1,160 laboratory-confirmed patients were enrolled from nine provinces in China. Data on comorbidities were obtained from the patients' medical records. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratio ( Results: Overall, 158 (13.6%) patients were diagnosed with severe illness and 32 (2.7%) had unfavorable outcomes. Hypertension (2.87, 1.30-6.32), type 2 diabetes (T2DM) (3.57, 2.32-5.49), cardiovascular disease (CVD) (3.78, 1.81-7.89), fatty liver disease (7.53, 1.96-28.96), hyperlipidemia (2.15, 1.26-3.67), other lung diseases (6.00, 3.01-11.96), and electrolyte imbalance (10.40, 3.00-26.10) were independently linked to increased odds of being severely ill. T2DM (6.07, 2.89-12.75), CVD (8.47, 6.03-11.89), and electrolyte imbalance (19.44, 11.47-32.96) were also strong predictors of unfavorable outcomes. Women with comorbidities were more likely to have severe disease on admission (5.46, 3.25-9.19), while men with comorbidities were more likely to have unfavorable treatment outcomes (6.58, 1.46-29.64) within two weeks. Conclusion Besides hypertension, diabetes, and CVD, fatty liver disease, hyperlipidemia, other lung diseases, and electrolyte imbalance were independent risk factors for COVID-19 severity and poor treatment outcome. Women with comorbidities were more likely to have severe disease, while men with comorbidities were more likely to have unfavorable treatment outcomes.
Adult ; Aged ; COVID-19/virology* ; China/epidemiology* ; Comorbidity ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Severity of Illness Index ; Treatment Outcome

OBJECTIVE: To explore the feasibility and to compare the merits and demerits of laparoscopic and endoscopic approach in removing common bile duct stones in patients with gastrojejunostomy after gastrectomy. METHODS: Between January 2012 and December 2016, 25 patients with common bile duct stones after gastrojejunostomy received laparoscopic or endoscopic treatment in our centers. They were divided into laparoscopic group and endoscopic group based on treatment approaches for common bile duct stones, including 15 patients in laparoscopic group and 10 in endoscopic group. The clinical characteristics and outcomes between the two groups were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 25 patients with gastrojejunostomy, the method of reconstruction was Billroth II in 21 patients and Roux-en-Y in 4 patients. Six patients received laparoscopic or endoscopic treatment during the acute cholangitis state. Among the laparoscopic group, 5 patients with stones more than 1 cm, 7 patients with multiple stones, while in the endoscopic group, 3 patients with stones more than 1 cm and 4 patients with multiple stones. Fourteen patients in the laparoscopic group with coexisting gallbladder stones, and 6 of their common bile duct stones were successfully removed by transcystic approach without T tube drainage. Stone removals were successful in 4 patients of the endoscopic group by a single performance, including 3 patients with single small stone and one patient with multiple small stones. Two patients in the laparoscopic group were converted to open surgery for severe adhesion and one patient in the endoscopic group turned to laparoscopic operation for failing of finding papilla in the Roux-en-Y anastomotic status. The median hospital stays were 12 d and 10 d, respectively in the laparoscopic and endoscopic group. There were 3 patients with postoperative complications, including one patient with paralytic ileus in the laparoscopic group and 2 patients with biliary pancreatitis or bacteremia in the endoscopic group, and all of them recovered uneventfully with conservative treatment. CONCLUSION Both laparoscopic and endoscopic approaches are feasible for removing stones in the common bile duct in patients with gastrojejunostomy after gastrectomy, and they complement each other. In addition, both techniques are difficult to conduct, and a technical competence should be considered in selection of each method.
Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde ; Cholecystectomy, Laparoscopic ; Common Bile Duct ; Gastric Bypass ; Humans ; Laparoscopy ; Retrospective Studies