Objective To assess efficacy of a mouthwash containing 0.1% cetylpiridinium on gingivitis and plaque and its safety. Methods Multi-center randomized double-blind trial with positive control and split-mouth comparison was designed. Scaling on teeth of left side were conducted at do then on those of right side at D8. The cases rinsed five times a day in same way with assigned agents. Efficacy was measured using before-after differences of clinical and microbial variables. Re-examinations were scheduled at D4 and D8. Brushing was refrained between D0 and D4, resumed between D4 and D8. Results There were 144 patients with gingivitis included, 4 lost follow up. Data of 69 cases in test group and 71 in control group could be analyzed. Baseline data analysis showed that distributions of sex, age and values of clinical and microbial variables in both groups were well comparable. At D4 plaque accumulations of the scaled side in both groups were in same level, and Gingival index (GI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI) and VAS for halitosis were significantly reduced. At D8 the measurements of plaque index (PI), GI, SBI and VAS of halitosis decreased significantly more than those of D4. More than half of the suspected pathogenic strains were eliminated and log value of its CFU/ml decreased significantly but at same level in both groups. The balance of intra-oral bacterial flora was not disturbed. Seventeen cases in test group (24.6%) had minor and transient adverse reactions related to the mouthwash. Antimicrobial tests in vitro confirmed that the test agent could kill or inhibit growth of the pathogenic bacteria involving with oropharyngeal infection, gingivitis, periodontal diseases and caries. Conclusion The mouthwash containing cetylpiridinium could inhibit plaque, reduce severity of gingivitis and halitosis, with acceptable minor adverse reactions, similar to those of the marketed cetylpiridinum solution.
ObjectiveTo investigate the decision of combined liver and kidney transplantation (CLKT) after renal transplantation, provide surgical therapeutic experience for those patients with liver and renal insufficiencies and hepatorenal syndrome and summarize the risk factors, demerits and merits, and operative indications of CLKT. MethodsThe data of three successful CLKT cases of our centre from Feb. 2014 to Jan 2015 were retrospectively analyzed, and these three patients had kidney transplantation before. We also reviewed the latest associated literatures. ResultsThree patients got successful operations of CLKT and had very good recovery of renal function several days ofter operaton. Two of them discharged a few weeks after surgery, and one of these two patients got severe pulmonary infection of fungus two month after CLKT but recovered under proper therapy finally. The third patient died of severe mixed infection one month after CLKT. ConclusionsThe surgical techniques and rejection are not the main impact factor to the prognosis of CLKT after renal transplantation. Infection is the biggest trouble to which we should pay most of our attention. We should decide whether to do synchronous or nonsynchronous CLKT according to the situation before surgery. Moreover, the systematic therapy administration after CLKT is very necessary for the patients' long-term survival.
ObjectiveTo investigate the ideal digestive tract reconstruction method for radical distal gastrectomy (DG). MethodsClinical and follow-up data of 862 patients with gastric cancer who underwent DG in Xijing Hospital of Digestive Diseases of The Fourth Military Medical University from January 2010 to January 2013 were analyzed retrospectively. According to reconstruction methods, patients were divided into three groups:Billroth Ⅰ group (B-Ⅰgroup), Billroth Ⅱ (B-Ⅱ)+Braun group (B-Ⅱ+Braun group), and Roux-en-Y group. In order to reduce the difference of clinicopa-thological characteristics, Gmatch method was used to select patients basing on gender, age (±5 years), tumor size (±1 cm), pT staging, and pN staging. The perioperative data, recent (30 days after surgery) complications, gastroscopic results over one year, and postoperative survival rate were compared respectively among the 3 groups. Results① Perioperative indexes. The operative time, postoperative hospitalization, and semi liquid diet time were significantly different among 3 groups (P < 0.050). As compared with B-Ⅱ+Braun group and Roux-en-Y group, B-Ⅰ group had a significantly shorter operative time (P < 0.012 5), and there was no significant difference between B-Ⅱ+Braun group and Roux-en-Y group (P > 0.012 5). As compared with B-Ⅱ+Braun group, B-Ⅰ group had a significantly shorter semi liquid diet time (P < 0.012 5), but there was no significant difference between B-Ⅱ+Braun group and Roux-en-Y group, as well as Roux-en-Y group and B-Ⅰ group (P > 0.012 5). As compared with B-Ⅰ group and B-Ⅱ+Braun group, Roux-en-Y group had a significantly longer postoperative hospitalization (P < 0.012 5), and there was no significant difference between B-Ⅰ group and B-Ⅱ+ Braun group (P > 0.012 5). ② There was no significant difference in recent complications between Roux-en-Y group (12.5%, 4/32), B-Ⅱ+Braun (6.2%, 2/32), and B-Ⅰ group (3.1%, 1/32), P=0.495. ③ Results of endoscopic examination over 1 year after radical DG showed that there was significant difference among 3 groups (P < 0.050). Compared with B-Ⅰ group and B-Ⅱ+Braun group, the rates of reflux gastritis, bile reflux, and reflux esophagitis of Roux-en-Y group were all lower (P < 0.012 5), but there was no significant difference between B-Ⅰ group and B-Ⅱ+Braun group (P > 0.012 5).④ The 3-year survival rates of Roux-en-Y group, B-Ⅱ+Braun group, and B-Ⅰ group were 70.0% (21/30), 73.3% (22/30), and 75.0% (24/32) respectively, and there was no significant difference in the survival situation (P=0.911). ConclusionsThe effect of Rouxen-Y anastomosis on resisting gastrointestinal reflux is remarkable. B-Ⅰanastomosis has the advantages of more simple operation, faster recovery, and more similar to the physiological structure. Thus, B-Ⅰ anastomosis and Roux-en-Y anastomosis are recommended for digestive tract reconstruction in DG.