Search

Abstract Background Distal duodenal resections are sometimes necessary for radical surgery, but how to restore duodenal continuity is still unclear. This study aimed at determining which style of anastomosis was more suitable for the duodenojejunostomy after resection of distal duodenum. Patients and methods We retrospectively identified 34 patients who underwent distal duodenum resection at our center between January 2014 and December 2021. According to whether the end or the side of the proximal duodenum was involved in reconstruction, duodenojejunostomy were classified as End style (E-style) and Side style (S-style). Demographic data, clinicopathological details, and postoperative complications were analyzed between two groups. Results Thirteen patients (38.2%) received E-style duodenojejunostomy, and 21 patients (62.8%) received S-style duodenojejunostomy. Comparative analysis showed that in group of E-style, patients had a lower rate of multivisceral resection(5/13 vs 18/21; P = 0.008), delayed gastric emptying (DGE) (1/13 vs 11/21; P = 0.011) and intraperitoneal infection (2/13 vs 12/21; P = 0.03). In this study, the incidence of major complications was up to 35.3% (12/34) and no patient died of complication in perioperative period. In two group, there was no difference in the incidence of major complications (E-style vs S-style: 3/13 vs 9/21; P = 0.292). Conclusions The E-style duodenojejunostomy for the reconstruction of distal duodenum resection is safe and feasible. The E-style anastomosis may have potential value in decreasing the occurrence of complications such as DGE and intraperitoneal infection, and the definitive advantages still need to be verified.

This article has been retracted. Please see the Retraction Notice for more detail: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-024-02448-2.

Abstract Background Treating patients with advanced sarcomas is challenging due to great histologic diversity among its subtypes. Leiomyosarcoma (LMS) and de-differentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) are two common and aggressive subtypes of soft tissue sarcoma (STS). They differ significantly in histology and clinical behaviors. However, the molecular driving force behind the difference is unclear. Methods We collected 20 LMS and 12 DDLPS samples and performed whole exome sequencing (WES) to obtain their somatic mutation profiles. We also performed RNA-Seq to analyze the transcriptomes of 8 each of the LMS and DDLPS samples and obtained information about differential gene expression, pathway enrichment, immune cell infiltration in tumor microenvironment, and chromosomal rearrangement including gene fusions. Selected gene fusion events from the RNA-seq prediction were checked by RT-PCR in tandem with Sanger sequencing. Results We detected loss of function mutation and deletion of tumor suppressors mostly in LMS, and oncogene amplification mostly in DDLPS. A focal amplification affecting chromosome 12q13–15 region which encodes MDM2, CDK4 and HMGA2 is notable in DDLPS. Mutations in TP53, ATRX, PTEN, and RB1 are identified in LMS but not DDLPS, while mutation of HERC2 is only identified in DDLPS but not LMS. RNA-seq revealed overexpression of MDM2, CDK4 and HMGA2 in DDLPS and down-regulation of TP53 and RB1 in LMS. It also detected more fusion events in DDLPS than LMS (4.5 vs. 1, p = 0.0195), and the ones involving chromosome 12 in DDLPS stand out. RT-PCR and Sanger sequencing verified the majority of the fusion events in DDLPS but only one event in LMS selected to be tested. The tumor microenvironmental signatures are highly correlated with histologic types. DDLPS has more endothelial cells and fibroblasts content than LMS. Conclusions Our analysis revealed different recurrent genetic variations in LMS and DDLPS including simultaneous upregulation of gene expression and gene copy number amplification of MDM2 and CDK4. Up-regulation of tumor related genes is favored in DDLPS, while loss of suppressor function is favored in LMS. DDLPS harbors more frequent fusion events which can generate neoepitopes and potentially targeted by personalized immune treatment.

Abstract Background At present, sevoflurane inhalation anesthesia used on infants is well-known. But long-time exposure to inhalation anesthetic could cause neurologic disorder, especially nerve degeneration in infant and developing brain. The central nervous system degeneration of infants could affect the memory and cognitive function. γ-Aminobutyric acid (GABA) is a known inhibitory neurotransmitter in central nervous system. Inhalation anesthetic sevoflurane may activate GABAA receptor to inhibit central nervous system, leading to apoptosis of neural degeneration, cognitive dysfunction in the critical period of brain development. Methods Neural stem cells were derived from Wistar embryos, cultured in vitro. Third generation of neural stem cells were randomly divided into four groups according to cultured suspension: Sevoflurane group (Group S), GABAA receptor antagonists, Bicuculline group (Group B), Sevoflurane + GABAA receptor antagonists, Bicuculline group (Group S + B), dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) group (Group D). Group B and Group D did not receive sevoflurane preconditioning. Group S and Group S + B were pretreated with 1 minimum alveolar concentration (MAC) sevoflurane for 0 h, 3 h, 6 h, and 12 h. Group S + B and Group B were pretreated with bicuculline (10 uM). Group D was treated with DMSO (10 uL/mL). After treatments above, all groups were cultured for 48 h. Then we measured the cells viability by Cell Counting Kit (CCK-8) assay, cytotoxicity by Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH) assay, apoptosis ratio with Annexin V/propidium iodide (PI) staining by flow cytometry, and the expression of GABAAR, anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2, pro-apoptotic protein Bax and Caspase-3 by western blotting. Results After exposing to sevoflurane for 0 h, 3 h, 6 h, and 12 h with 1MAC, we found that cell viability obviously decreased and cytotoxicity increased in time-dependent way. And Annexin V/PI staining indicated increased apoptosis ratio by flow cytometry. The protein level of GABAA receptor, pro-apoptotic protein Bax and apoptosis protein Caspase-3 increased; while anti-apoptotic protein Bcl-2 decreased. And bicuculline could reverse all detrimental results caused by sevoflurane. Conclusion Sevoflurane can inhibit the central nervous system by activating GABAA, resulting in apoptosis of neural stem cells, thus leading to the NSCs degeneration.