Diabetic foot ulcers: A devastating complication of diabetes mellitus continues non-stop in spite of new medical treatment modalities

Diabetic foot ulcer is a devastating complication of diabetes mellitus and significant cause of mortality and morbidity all over the world and can be complex and costly. The development of foot ulcer in a diabetic patient has been estimated to be 19%-34% through their lifetime. The pathophysiology of diabetic foot ulcer consist of neuropathy, trauma and, in many patients, additional peripheral arterial disease. In particular, diabetic neuropathy leads to foot deformity, callus formation, and insensitivity to trauma or pressure. The standard algorithms in diabetic foot ulcer management include assessing the ulcer grade classification, surgical debridement, dressing to facilitate wound healing, off-loading, vascular assessment (status and presence of a chance for interventional vascular correction), and infection and glycemic control. Although especially surgical procedures are sometimes inevitable, they are poor predictive factors for the prognosis of diabetic foot ulcer. Different novel treatment modalities such as nonsurgical debridement agents, oxygen therapies, and negative pressure wound therapy, topical drugs, cellular bioproducts, human growth factors, energy-based therapies, and systematic therapies have been available for patients with diabetic foot ulcer. However, it is uncertain whether they are effective in terms of promoting wound healing related with a limited number of randomized controlled trials. This review aims at evaluating diabetic foot ulcer with regard to all aspects. We will also focus on conventional and novel adjunctive therapy in diabetic foot management.     

Effects of the Cerebral Aneurysm Treatment Method on Coil Packing Density and Its Relationship with the Ostium Area

PurposeTo test the following hypotheses: (a) balloon or stent assistance increases coil packing density (CPD) in the endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms, and (b) CPD correlates to ostium area (OA) and aneurysm volume (AV).Materials and MethodsThis retrospective study included 60 aneurysms (54 ruptured and 6 unruptured) treated with simple coiling (SC) (n = 18), balloon-assisted coiling (BAC) (n = 7), or stent-assisted coiling (SAC) (n = 35) at the authors’ institution between August 2017 and December 2019. AV and OA measurements were obtained from 3-dimensional digital subtraction angiography images using commercial software. Coil sizes were retrieved from patient files, and coil volume (CV) measurements were obtained from https://www.angiocalc.com/. Analysis of covariance, multivariate covariance analysis, and Pearson correlation analyses were performed.ResultsThe median value for AV, CV, CPD, and OA was 63.4 mm³ (range, 5.5–1,771.4 mm³), 23.13 mm³ (range, 2.03–296.95 mm³), 33.29% (range, 13.41%–81.02%), and 10.7 mm² (range, 2.7–49.9 mm²), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that the CPD values were not significantly different among the treatment groups, although OA significantly differed between the SC and SAC groups (P < .05). Pearson correlations showed that similar to AV, OA was negatively correlated with CPD (r = ?0.321, P < .05).ConclusionsThe CPD value in cerebral aneurysms treated with BAC or SAC did not differ from that in aneurysms treated with SC.     

稳定性冠心病血瘀证的血浆定量蛋白质组学探析＊

目的 基于数据非依赖性采集的定量蛋白质组学技术（data independent acquisition，DIA）对稳定性冠心病血瘀证患者的血浆蛋白质进行研究分析，初步探索冠心病血瘀证的关键生物学过程与核心靶点。方法 选择中国中医科学院广安门医院心血管科收治的5例稳定性冠心病患者作为疾病观察组，同时选取健康成人5人作为对照组，采用DIA蛋白质组学技术对受试者的血浆进行检测，确定蛋白质表达量后进行差异蛋白质表达分析、GO富集分析、KEGG信号通路图查询和蛋白质互作网络分析。结果 在差异倍数为1.5倍时，疾病观察组相比于健康对照组，共鉴定到22个蛋白质下调，9个蛋白质上调。进一步的生物信息学分析表明，冠心病血瘀证的生物学过程与补体参与的慢性炎症反应有关，关键信号通路是补体与凝血级联反应的信号通路，核心蛋白质为C反应蛋白、转甲状腺素蛋白、补体因子H、维生素D结合蛋白等。结论 冠心病血瘀证的生物学过程与补体参与的慢性炎症反应有关。     

Biomechanical comparison of stemless humeral components in total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare initial fixation strength between various stemless and stemmed humeral components and to correlate implant fixation strength with bone mineral density (BMD).MethodsFive humeral stem designs were investigated: Stemless-A (four hollow fins), Stemless-B (central body, three solid fins), Stemless-C (central screw, peripheral rim-fit), Short stem (50 mm), and Standard stem (130 mm). Fifty cadaveric human humerii were obtained and divided into five groups. BMD within the humeral head was determined for all samples. The mean BMD was similar between groups. The 25 samples with the lowest and highest BMDs were categorized as “Low” and “High,” respectively, with a BMD threshold of 0.35 g/cm², creating BMD subgroups. After implantation, each sample underwent a standardized biomechanical testing protocol, with axial loading followed by torsional loading. Sensors attached to the specimen recorded micromotion throughout testing. Axial loading consisted of cyclic loading for 100 cycles at 3 peak forces (220, 520, and 820 N). Torsional loading consisted of 100 cycles of internal/external rotation at 0.1 Hz at 6 peak torques, or until failure (±2.5, 5, 7.5, 10, 12.5, and 15 Nm). Failure was defined as the torque at which any bone fracture, implant detachment from anchor/stem, or an excess of 50° internal/external rotation occurred. Groups and BMD subgroups were compared.ResultsAt maximal axial loading, Stemless-B demonstrated greater micromotion (540 μm) than Stemless-C (192 μm) (P = .003). Stemless-B and Stemless-A (387 μm) also had greater micromotion than Short stem (118 μm, P < .001, P = .03) and Standard stem (85 μm, P < .001, P = .01). When comparing low-BMD samples at maximal axial loading, these differences were accentuated, but comparison of high-BMD samples showed no significant differences between groups. Torsional testing demonstrated that Standard stem failed at greater torque (7.2 Nm) than Stemless-B (2.3 Nm, P < .001), Stemless-A (1.9 Nm, P < .001), and Stemless-C (3.9 Nm, P = .01). When comparing torsional testing results of low-BMD samples, both Standard stem and Short stem failed at greater torque than Stemless-B (P = .02, P = .003) and Stemless-A (P = .03, P = .004) but failed at a similar torque to Stemless-C. Torsional testing of high-BMD samples showed that Standard stem failed at a greater torque than all stemless designs.ConclusionStemless humeral implants should be used with caution in low-BMD settings (<0.35 g/cm²). A central screw and peripheral rim-fit stemless anchor design demonstrated greater fixation strength at low BMD when compared with other designs, while all stemless designs performed similarly at high BMD.Level of evidenceBasic Science Study; Cadaveric Study