Our results indicate that D allele or DD homozygous is associated with the ESRD susceptibility in DN patients. However, more investigations are required to further this association.

Restoring intestinal microbiota dysbiosis with fecal microbiota transplantation is considered as a promising treatment for ulcerative colitis. However, the mechanisms underlying its relieving effects remain unclear. Ulcerative colitis pathogenesis is associated with the involvement of immune cells and inflammatory cytokines. Here, we aimed to investigate the effect of fecal microbiota transplantation on T cell cytokines in a dextran sulfate sodium-induced ulcerative colitis mouse model. Five-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) was used as the positive control. Male C57BL/6 mice were randomly assigned to control, model (UC), UC + FMT, and UC + 5-ASA groups. Each group consisted of five mice. The establishment of the mouse model was verified by fecal occult-blood screening and hematoxylin–eosin staining. Results showed that fecal microbiota transplantation reduced colonic inflammation, significantly decreased T helper (Th)1 and Th17 cells, interferon-gamma, interleukin-2 and interleukin-17, as well as significantly increased Th2 and regulatory T (Treg) cells, interleukin-4, interleukin-10, and transforming growth factor-beta, and improved routine blood count. Furthermore, 16S rRNA gene-sequencing analysis showed a significant increase in the relative abundance of genus Akkermansia and a significant decrease in the relative abundance of genus Helicobacter in the ulcerative colitis group. Fecal microbiota transplantation restored the profile of the intestinal microbiota to that of the control group. These findings demonstrated the capability of fecal microbiota transplantation in controlling experimentally induced ulcerative colitis by improving Th1/Th2 and Th17/Treg imbalance through the regulation of intestinal microbiota.

No abstract

Background: LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and the procedure for prolapse and hemorrhoids (PPH) are both relatively new treatments for managing symptomatic hemorrhoids. This review aimed to evaluate and compare their short-term outcomes. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database for randomized controlled trials comparing the LigaSure procedure and PPH published in any language from 1998 to October 2013. Results: A total of 5 studies involving 397 participants were included in this review. Pooled analysis showed that the LigaSure procedure was associated with significantly lower recurrence rate [relative risk (RR) = 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.06 to 0.72, P = .01] and significantly shorter operating time [mean difference (MD) = −6.39, 95% CI: −7.68 to −5.10, P < .001]. The analysis showed no significant difference in postoperative pain between the two techniques (MD = 0.55, 95% CI: −0.15 to 1.25, P = .12] or in time off work or away from normal activity [standard MD = 0.13, 95% CI: −1.80 to 2.06, P = .9]. The two techniques did not show significant differences in postoperative complications or other patient-related outcomes ( P > .05). Conclusions: Our review indicates that both LigaSure hemorrhoidectomy and PPH are safe alternatives for the management of hemorrhoids. Available evidence suggests that the LigaSure technique is associated with shorter operating time and lower hemorrhoid recurrence rate, but these conclusions should be further confirmed in large, multicenter randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up.