Objective To analyze the associations between aging and fat deposition in the pancreas, liver, kidneys, and spleen. Methods A total of 40 subjects were enrolled in the study. Fasting venous blood was collected and abdominal 3T MRI with the six-point Dixon-VIBE subsequence was performed. Fat fraction (FF) was quantified, and biochemical indexes related to glucose metabolism, lipid metabolism and liver and kidney functions were determined. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the correlations among variables. Results Pancreatic fat fraction (PFF) had an independent positive correlation with age and a non-independently positive correlation with body mass index (BMI, P＜0.05); liver fat fraction (LFF) had an independently positive correlation with BMI and a non-independent association with age (P＜0.05); kidney fat fraction (KFF) had a non-independently positive correlations with both age and BMI (P＜0.05). There were positive correlations between PFF and LFF or KFF (P＜0.05); after adjusted PFF, there was no correlation between LFF and KFF. PFF was positively correlated with fasting C-peptide (FCP) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c, P＜0.05); LFF was positively correlated with fasting plasma insulin (FPI) and FCP, and was negatively correlated with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C, P＜0.05); KFF was positively correlated with fasting plasma glucose (FPG), triglyceride (TG) and was negatively correlated with HDL-C (P＜0.05). Spleen fat fraction (SFF) had no correlation with age, BMI and either metabolic parameters. Conclusions Aging significantly affects fat deposition in the pancreas, and may affect fat deposition in the liver and kidneys, with little effect on spleen metabolism.

Objective:To investigate the clinical features of multiple endocrine gland dysfunction in patients with tumors after using immune checkpoint inhibitors(ICIs).Methods:Cases with two or more abnormalities of endocrine gland function after immunotherapy were collected from the Department of Endocrinology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University between January 2019 and January 2022. Clinical manifestations, laboratory tests, imaging, treatment and prognosis were analyzed.Results:A total of 12 patients were included, 6 males and 6 females, aged(61.2±10.0) years old. All patients received programmed cell death protein-1(PD-1) monoclonal antibody therapy, and the time to endocrine abnormality ranged from 9 to 94 weeks after administration. All patients developed primary hypothyroidism, 11 of them had isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency, and 1 had primary adrenal insufficiency.Conclusion:ICIs can involve multiple endocrine glands simultaneously or successively, mainly manifested as primary hypothyroidism and isolated adrenocorticotropic hormone deficiency. It is essential to assess the function of the pituitary and target glands in patients treated with ICIs to improve the safety of immunotherapy.

Objective:To explore the team construction and treatment strategy of the Diabetic Foot-Multidisciplinary Team.Methods:The clinical data of 19 patients with severe ischemic diabetic foot treated by our Diabetic Foot-Multidisciplinary Team Center from Apr 2021 to Mar 2022 were collected, and the overall amputation rate, above-ankle major amputation rate, minor amputation rate and mortality, Diabetic Foot-Multidisciplinary Team consultation discipline participation rate and treatment participation degree were retrospectively analyzed.Results:Nineteen patients (15 males and 4 females) were enrolled, aged 26 to 94 (68.6±14.2). All were with severe ischemic diabetic foot ulcer:Rutherford grade 5 or up and dysfunction in 2 or more organs. Complications included arteriosclerosis obliterans of the lower extremities in 18 cases, heart diseases in 18, hypertension in 15, and renal insufficiencies in 10. The overall amputation rate was 36.8%, major amputation rate in 21.1%, minor amputation rate in 15.8%, and mortality rate was 15.8%. A total of 16 disciplines participated in Diabetic Foot-Multidisciplinary Team; the main participating disciplines were vascular surgery (19 times), endocrinology (12 times), and cardiology (11 times). The main treatment disciplines were vascular surgery (14 times), plastic surgery (3 times), and cardiology (2 times).Conclusion:For the diagnosis and treatment of diabetic foot, it is necessary to set up a multidisciplinary team as early as possible to control the causes of diabetic foot ulcer, prevent the recurrence of diabetic foot ulcer, reduce the mortality and amputation rate, and improve the quality of life of patients.

Objective:To access the efficacy of monoenergetic imaging from spectral CT combined with metal artifact reduction for orthopedic implants (O-MAR) on reducing contrast hardening artifacts in the vein on the injection side, and determining the optimal monoenergetic spectral range to improve the display of axillary lymph node.Methods:A total of 35 patients with breast cancer who underwent chest-enhanced CT scans were enrolled in this retrospective study. The original data were reconstructed to obtain a total of 35 sets of images, including one conventional image, 17 groups of monoenergetic images, and 17 groups of monoenergetic+O-MAR images. The areas of interest were delineated in the high and low-density artifact area on the injection side of the same layer contrast agent, and the contralateral ectopectoralis. The CT value and its standard deviation (SD) were recorded respectively, the artifact area was measured, and the number of axillary lymph nodes was recorded. The difference in CT values (ΔCT 1, ΔCT 2) and the artifact index (AI1 and AI 2) of the high and low-density artifact areas relative to the contralateral ectopectoralis in the same layer were calculated respectively. Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare the differences of ΔCT, AI, artifact area, and number of lymph nodes among the three imaging modalities, and the Kappa test was used to compare the differences in subjective evaluation. Results:As the energy level increased, compared to the conventional image, monoenergetic image, ΔCT 1 absolute value, ΔCT 2 absolute value, AI 1, and AI 2 showed a trend of initially low and then high, artifact area decreased, and the number of detected lymph nodes increased ( P<0.01). Compared to other energy levels, when the monoenergetic image was 100 keV, ΔCT 1 value, 140 keV for ΔCT 2 value, 120 keV for AI 1 value, and 130 keV for AI 2 value were close to zero, and the number of detected lymph nodes was highest at 110-200 keV. In contrast, in the monoenergetic+O-MAR images, ΔCT 1 absolute value showed a trend of initially low and then high, but, ΔCT 2 absolute value, AI 1, AI 2, and artifact area all significantly decreased, whereas the number of detected lymph nodes significantly increased (χ 2 values were 916.23, 895.93, 387.08, 519.41, 890.10, and 1027.98, respectively. All P<0.01). Compared to other energy levels, when the monoenergetic+O-MAR image was at 100 keV, ΔCT 1 value was close to zero, while ΔCT 2 value became close to zero with increasing energy level, and the number of detected lymph nodes was highest at 110-200 keV. As the energy level increased, the ΔCT 1, AI 1, AI 2, and artifact area of monoenergetic+O-MAR images were significantly smaller than those of monoenergetic images at the same energy level, and the number of detected lymph nodes was significantly higher than that of monoenergetic images ( P<0.01). The subjective scores for 110-200 keV monoenergetic images and 100-200 keV monoenergetic+O-MAR images were both higher than 4, and the score for monoenergetic+O-MAR images was significantly higher than that of single-energy spectrum images. The agreement between the two radiologists in assessing subjective scores was good. Conclusion:At 100-120 keV level, spectral CT monoenergetic combined with O-MAR imaging technique has the best performance in removing hardening-induced artifacts of chest-enhanced CT contrast agent and detecting and displaying axillary lymph nodes.

Objective:To explore the safety and efficacy of prophylactic superdrainage using superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) in delayed single-pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction.Methods:The clinical data of all patients who underwent single-pedicle DIEP flap delayed breast reconstruction in Department of Comprehensive Breast Plasty Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College from May 2018 to August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether SIEV-internal thoracic vein anastomosis was performed, they were divided into superdrainaged group and non-superdrainaged group. The diameter of SIEV and the time required for anastomosis were recorded. The total operation time, flap ischemia time, hospital stay, the rates of flap diffuse congestion, overall complications and second operation were compared between the two groups. The relative risks of flap diffuse congestion, complications and second operation were calculated. SPSS 24.0 software was used for data analysis. Measurement data was expressed as Mean±SD, independent sample t test was used for analysis. Counting data was expressed as %, and χ2 test was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 45 patients were included, including 26 patients in the non-superdrainaged group and 19 patients in the superdrainaged group. The total operation time was (7.7±1.9) h and (8.4±1.5) h, the flap ischemia time was (89.5±10.4) min and (92.6±12.3) min, and the hospital stay was (6.6±1.8) d and (6.6±2.0) d, respectively. There were no significant differences ( P>0.05). In the superdrainaged group, the diameter of SIEV was (2.5±0.3) mm, and manual suture was used. The time required for anastomosis of one SIEV was (12.2±2.3) min. The rates of diffuse congestion, recipient site complications, donor site complications and second operation were 7.7%(2/26), 15.4%(4/26), 7.7%(2/26) and 15.4%(4/26) in the non-superdrainaged group, and 0(0/19), 5.3%(1/19), 10.5%(2/19) and 5.3%(1/19) in the superdrainaged group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The relative risks were 3.7, 2.9, 0.7 and 2.9, respectively. Conclusion:Prophylactic superdrainage using SIEV is safe and effective. It can minimize the potential rate of diffuse venous congestion and secondary surgery, and not at the expense of increased flap ischemia time and abdominal complications in the meanwhile.

In deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction, diffuse venous congestion caused by non-pedicle causes, such as lack of effective communication between deep and superficial venous systems, is very rare. In this paper, a case of young woman who underwent DIEP breast reconstruction after breast cancer mastectomy was reported. Imaging findings showed the absence of bilateral dominant perforators and the lack of communication between the deep and superficial venous system. During operation, the superficial inferior epigastric vessels were dissected in advance. Indocyanine green angiography showed arterial perfusion insufficiency and venous congestion.The flap was successfully salvaged by supercharging/draining with superficial inferior epigastric vessels, preserving the abdominal function of the young patient to the greatest extent.

Objective:This study aimed to explore the clinical application value of the indication selection criteria for bi-pedicled deep inferior epigastric arterial perforator flap(DIEP) versus pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap(TRAM) combined with DIEP for breast reconstruction.Methods:The clinical data of patients who underwent delayed bi-pedicled abdominal flap breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery in the Department of Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery and Department of Mammoplasty, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2008 to April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the indications for each procedure, corresponding blood supply source was selected. Subsequently, patients were divided into two groups: bi-pedicled DIEP group and pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group according to the type of blood supply source. The indication selection criteria for pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap was as follows: lack of two groups of recipient vessels; no dominant perforator in the abdominal donor site; previous abdominal liposuction or abdominal surgery with large dissection range and severe scar; patients were unable to tolerate prolonged surgery or had high risk factors for microsurgery. A comparison of breast reconstruction surgery characteristics was conducted between the two groups. Independent-samples t-test, rank sum test, Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact probability method were used to analyze various data including age, body mass index (BMI), time interval between breast cancer surgery and breast reconstruction surgery, history of radiotherapy, history of chemotherapy, history of smoking, history of lower abdominal surgery, history of hypertension, original surgical incision type, length and width of flap, hospitalization length, preoperative and postoperative conditions, as well as postoperative complications. Statistical significance was defined at P<0.05. Results:A total of 54 patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction were included in this study with a mean age of 42.2 years (range, 30-59 years). The pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group consisted of 21 patients with a mean age of 42.7 years (range, 33-56 years) while the bi-pedicled DIEP group comprised 33 patients with a mean age of 41.8 years (30-59 years). Out of the 54 patients, a total of 38 were eventually followed up, comprising 14 in the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group and 24 in the bi-pedicled DIEP group. The average follow-up duration for the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group was 42 months (range, 6-69 months). Abdominal bulge occurred in one patient, while another patient experienced abdominal hernia. The average follow-up duration for the bi-pedicled DIEP group was 47 months (6-179 months), with no reported cases of abdominal bulge or abdominal hernia. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups regarding age, BMI, time interval between breast cancer surgery and breast reconstruction surgery, history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, history of smoking, history of lower abdominal surgery, history of hypertension, original surgical incision type, length and width of flap, hospitalization length or time to ambulation (all P>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference noted in duration of surgery between the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group and bi-pedicled DIEP group [6.0(5.5-6.5) hours vs. 8.5(8.0-8.8) hours] ( P<0.01). Comparison analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of partial flap necrosis (0/21 vs. 1/33), abdominal incision dehiscence (2/21 vs. 2/33), abdominal bulge (1/14 vs. 0 /24) or abdominal hernia (1/1 vs. 0/24) between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:For patients who needed bilateral vascular pedicled lower abdominal wall for breast reconstruction, utilizing a pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap did not increase surgical complication risks. The proposed indication selection criteria for using a pedicled TRAM + DIEP combined flap outlined in this study could serve as guidance when choosing methods for bi-pedicled abdominal flap breast reconstruction.

Objective:To explore the safety and efficacy of prophylactic superdrainage using superficial inferior epigastric vein (SIEV) in delayed single-pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction.Methods:The clinical data of all patients who underwent single-pedicle DIEP flap delayed breast reconstruction in Department of Comprehensive Breast Plasty Surgery, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College from May 2018 to August 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to whether SIEV-internal thoracic vein anastomosis was performed, they were divided into superdrainaged group and non-superdrainaged group. The diameter of SIEV and the time required for anastomosis were recorded. The total operation time, flap ischemia time, hospital stay, the rates of flap diffuse congestion, overall complications and second operation were compared between the two groups. The relative risks of flap diffuse congestion, complications and second operation were calculated. SPSS 24.0 software was used for data analysis. Measurement data was expressed as Mean±SD, independent sample t test was used for analysis. Counting data was expressed as %, and χ2 test was used for analysis. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results:A total of 45 patients were included, including 26 patients in the non-superdrainaged group and 19 patients in the superdrainaged group. The total operation time was (7.7±1.9) h and (8.4±1.5) h, the flap ischemia time was (89.5±10.4) min and (92.6±12.3) min, and the hospital stay was (6.6±1.8) d and (6.6±2.0) d, respectively. There were no significant differences ( P>0.05). In the superdrainaged group, the diameter of SIEV was (2.5±0.3) mm, and manual suture was used. The time required for anastomosis of one SIEV was (12.2±2.3) min. The rates of diffuse congestion, recipient site complications, donor site complications and second operation were 7.7%(2/26), 15.4%(4/26), 7.7%(2/26) and 15.4%(4/26) in the non-superdrainaged group, and 0(0/19), 5.3%(1/19), 10.5%(2/19) and 5.3%(1/19) in the superdrainaged group, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups ( P>0.05). The relative risks were 3.7, 2.9, 0.7 and 2.9, respectively. Conclusion:Prophylactic superdrainage using SIEV is safe and effective. It can minimize the potential rate of diffuse venous congestion and secondary surgery, and not at the expense of increased flap ischemia time and abdominal complications in the meanwhile.

In deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction, diffuse venous congestion caused by non-pedicle causes, such as lack of effective communication between deep and superficial venous systems, is very rare. In this paper, a case of young woman who underwent DIEP breast reconstruction after breast cancer mastectomy was reported. Imaging findings showed the absence of bilateral dominant perforators and the lack of communication between the deep and superficial venous system. During operation, the superficial inferior epigastric vessels were dissected in advance. Indocyanine green angiography showed arterial perfusion insufficiency and venous congestion.The flap was successfully salvaged by supercharging/draining with superficial inferior epigastric vessels, preserving the abdominal function of the young patient to the greatest extent.

Objective:This study aimed to explore the clinical application value of the indication selection criteria for bi-pedicled deep inferior epigastric arterial perforator flap(DIEP) versus pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap(TRAM) combined with DIEP for breast reconstruction.Methods:The clinical data of patients who underwent delayed bi-pedicled abdominal flap breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery in the Department of Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery and Department of Mammoplasty, Plastic Surgery Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 2008 to April 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the indications for each procedure, corresponding blood supply source was selected. Subsequently, patients were divided into two groups: bi-pedicled DIEP group and pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group according to the type of blood supply source. The indication selection criteria for pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap was as follows: lack of two groups of recipient vessels; no dominant perforator in the abdominal donor site; previous abdominal liposuction or abdominal surgery with large dissection range and severe scar; patients were unable to tolerate prolonged surgery or had high risk factors for microsurgery. A comparison of breast reconstruction surgery characteristics was conducted between the two groups. Independent-samples t-test, rank sum test, Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact probability method were used to analyze various data including age, body mass index (BMI), time interval between breast cancer surgery and breast reconstruction surgery, history of radiotherapy, history of chemotherapy, history of smoking, history of lower abdominal surgery, history of hypertension, original surgical incision type, length and width of flap, hospitalization length, preoperative and postoperative conditions, as well as postoperative complications. Statistical significance was defined at P<0.05. Results:A total of 54 patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction were included in this study with a mean age of 42.2 years (range, 30-59 years). The pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group consisted of 21 patients with a mean age of 42.7 years (range, 33-56 years) while the bi-pedicled DIEP group comprised 33 patients with a mean age of 41.8 years (30-59 years). Out of the 54 patients, a total of 38 were eventually followed up, comprising 14 in the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group and 24 in the bi-pedicled DIEP group. The average follow-up duration for the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group was 42 months (range, 6-69 months). Abdominal bulge occurred in one patient, while another patient experienced abdominal hernia. The average follow-up duration for the bi-pedicled DIEP group was 47 months (6-179 months), with no reported cases of abdominal bulge or abdominal hernia. There were no statistically significant differences observed between the two groups regarding age, BMI, time interval between breast cancer surgery and breast reconstruction surgery, history of radiotherapy or chemotherapy, history of smoking, history of lower abdominal surgery, history of hypertension, original surgical incision type, length and width of flap, hospitalization length or time to ambulation (all P>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference noted in duration of surgery between the pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap group and bi-pedicled DIEP group [6.0(5.5-6.5) hours vs. 8.5(8.0-8.8) hours] ( P<0.01). Comparison analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in terms of partial flap necrosis (0/21 vs. 1/33), abdominal incision dehiscence (2/21 vs. 2/33), abdominal bulge (1/14 vs. 0 /24) or abdominal hernia (1/1 vs. 0/24) between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:For patients who needed bilateral vascular pedicled lower abdominal wall for breast reconstruction, utilizing a pedicled TRAM+ DIEP combined flap did not increase surgical complication risks. The proposed indication selection criteria for using a pedicled TRAM + DIEP combined flap outlined in this study could serve as guidance when choosing methods for bi-pedicled abdominal flap breast reconstruction.