[Technological innovation and patent transformation in rectal cancer surgery].

Surgery for rectal cancer has obtained quick improvement in techniques and concepts in recent years but still has challenging areas. Colorectal surgeons always seek to make operations clearer and easier, so that surgery can be safer and less time-consuming while guaranteeing surgical goals. With this purpose, our team have explored to make innovations in operations for rectal cancer and translate relevant patents from 2009. We summarize our achievements in this article as follows: (1) Reverse Miles operation (perineal operation first then laparoscopic abdominal operation) with two relevant patents-specialized instruments bag for laparoscopic operations (patent number ZL201520442331.0) and accessory spotlight for ultrasound scalpel (patent number ZL20102 0137689.X). (2) Laparoscopic sphincter-saving surgery for low rectal cancer through marker meeting approach with two patents-vacuum rectal drainage tube with functions of irrigation and ventilation (patent number ZL201520374385.8) and sterile sleeve cover of ultrasound scalpel handle (patent number ZL201920648102.2). (3) Laparoscopic radical resection of colorectal cancer and natural orifice specimen extraction. Different methods were designed according to the location of the tumor that classified as 20-40 cm, 10-20 cm and 5-10 cm to anus. Two relevant patents were specialized instruments for natural orifice specimen extraction (patent application number ZL2017101480141) and plastic film sleeve for natural orifice specimen extraction (patent application number ZL 201921169857.0). Reformation of surgical technique and innovation of surgical instruments should be conducted by surgeons with innovative thinking who always seek the way to translate ideas to patents and then real products to promote surgical treatment.

Posaconazole vs. voriconazole in the prevention of invasive fungal diseases in patients with haematological malignancies: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Posaconazole is superior to fluconazole or itraconazole in preventing invasive fungal diseases (IFDs) in patients with haematological malignancies; however, there have been reports of the comparing posaconazole and voriconazole. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective study in China enrolled AML, ALL and MDS patients, among others. Prophylaxis with posaconazole or voriconazole was administered for patients recovering from neutropenia or who had achieved complete remission. The primary emphasis was proven, probable, or possible IFDs during treatment. The cost-effectiveness, the proportion of adverse events and systemic antifungal treatment were the secondary emphasis. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients were recruited to receive posaconazole (n=81) or voriconazole (n=83). The incidence rates of proven, probable or possible IFD were 2.46% (2/81) and 4.82% (4/83) in the posaconazole group and voriconazole groups, respectively (P>0.05). Only one patients experienced adverse events on posaconazole, while eleven patients experienced such events on voriconazole (P=0.003). Patients receiving posaconazole or voriconazole had similar proportions of systemic antifungal treatment: 18.52% (15/81) in the posaconazole group and 16.87% (14/83) in the voriconazole group (P>0.05). In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the prognosis of the two groups was close, but the drug acquisition costs of posaconazole were higher than those of voriconazole (P=0.021). CONCLUSION: Posaconazole and voriconazole have the same prophylactic effect against IFDs in high-risk neutropenic Chinese patients. However, the safety of posaconazole is superior to that of voriconazole, while in terms of cost-effectiveness, voriconazole has an advantage over posaconazole.