Background/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

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.

Background/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

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.

Background/Aims: Activation of the cold receptor, transient receptor potential melastatin 8 (TRPM8) by menthol inhibits esophageal secondary peristalsis in healthy adults. Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) is common. This study is to evaluate the effects of acute infusion of menthol on esophageal peristalsis in patients with IEM. Methods: Twenty patients with IEM (males 11, mean age 36) were studied for esophageal peristalsis using high-resolution manometry. All participant had primary peristalsis performed with 10 water swallows and secondary peristalsis generated with 10 rapid air injections of 20 mL via mid-esophageal infusion port. Two different sessions by randomly performing acute administration of placebo or menthol (3 mM) were used for testing their effects on esophageal peristalsis. Results: Menthol infusion had no effects on distal contractile integral (P = 0.471), distal latency (P = 0.58), or complete peristalsis (P = 0.251). Menthol infusion did not change basal lower esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.321), esophagogastric junction contractile integral (P = 0.758), or integrated relaxation pressure (P = 0.375) of primary peristalsis, but reduced upper esophageal sphincter pressure (P = 0.037). Infusion of menthol significantly reduced the frequency of secondary peristalsis for air injects of 20 mL (P = 0.002), but did not affect distal contractile integral of secondary peristalsis for air injections of 20 mL. Conclusion This work has suggested that activation of TRPM8 by menthol can attenuate mechanosensitivity of secondary peristalsis in response to rapid air distension regardless of the presence of IEM.

Background/Aims: Finite nucleos(t)ide analog (NA) therapy has been proposed as an alternative treatment strategy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB), but biomarkers for post-treatment monitoring are limited. We investigated whether measuring hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) after NA cessation may stratify the risk of subsequent clinical relapse (CR). Methods: This retrospective multicenter analysis enrolled adults with CHB who were prospectively monitored after discontinuing entecavir or tenofovir with negative HBeAg and undetectable HBV DNA at the end of treatment (EOT). Patients with cirrhosis or malignancy were excluded. CR was defined as serum alanine aminotransferase > two times the upper limit of normal with recurrent viremia. We applied time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models to clarify the association between HBcrAg levels and subsequent CR. Results: The cohort included 203 patients (median age, 49.8 years; 76.8% male; 60.6% entecavir) who had been treated for a median of 36.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36.5–40.1). During a median post-treatment follow-up of 31.7 months (IQR, 16.7–67.1), CR occurred in 104 patients with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1–62.4%). Time-varying HBcrAg level was a significant risk factor for subsequent CR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.53 per log U/mL; 95% CI, 1.12–2.08) with adjustment for EOT HBsAg, EOT anti-HBe, EOT HBcrAg and time-varying HBsAg. During follow-up, HBcrAg <1,000 U/mL predicted a lower risk of CR (aHR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21–0.81). Conclusions Dynamic measurement of HBcrAg after NA cessation is predictive of subsequent CR and may be useful to guide post-treatment monitoring.

Background/Aims: Steatotic liver disease (SLD) is a common manifestation in chronic hepatitis C (CHC). Metabolic alterations in CHC are associated with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD). We aimed to elucidate whether hepatitis C virus (HCV) eradication mitigates MASLD occurrence or resolution. Methods: We enrolled 5,840 CHC patients whose HCV was eradicated by direct-acting antivirals in a nationwide HCV registry. MASLD and the associated cardiometabolic risk factors (CMRFs) were evaluated at baseline and 6 months after HCV cure. Results: There were 2,147 (36.8%) patients with SLD, and 1,986 (34.0%) of them met the MASLD criteria before treatment. After treatment, HbA1c (6.0% vs. 5.9%, p<0.001) and BMI (24.8 kg/m2 vs. 24.7 kg/m2, p<0.001) decreased, whereas HDL-C (49.1 mg/dL vs. 51.9 mg/dL, p<0.001) and triglycerides (102.8 mg/dL vs. 111.9 mg/dL, p<0.001) increased significantly. The proportion of patients with SLD was 37.5% after HCV eradication, which did not change significantly compared with the pretreatment status. The percentage of the patients who had post-treatment MASLD was 34.8%, which did not differ significantly from the pretreatment status (p=0.17). Body mass index (BMI) (odds ratio [OR] 0.89; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.85–0.92; p<0.001) was the only factor associated with MASLD resolution. In contrast, unfavorable CMRFs, including BMI (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.06–1.14; p<0.001) and HbA1c (OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.04–1.35; p=0.01), were independently associated with MASLD development after HCV cure. Conclusions HCV eradication mitigates MASLD in CHC patients. CMRF surveillance is mandatory for CHC patients with metabolic alterations, which are altered after HCV eradication and predict the evolution of MASLD.