Currently, the association of the initiation time of hepatitis B virus (HBV) screening and antiviral prophylaxis with adverse liver outcomes in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy remains conflicting.This retrospective study was designed to determine the association of HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis with adverse liver outcomes, and then proposed optimal management strategies on HBV screening and antiviral prophylaxis.We analyzed the medical data of Chinese cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy between 2000 and 2015. Descriptive statistics and Chi square tests were performed to analyze the basic characteristics of patients. Time-to-event analysis was used to determine incidence, and competing risk analysis was used to determine the hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes.A total of 12,158 patients (81.1% with solid tumors) were analyzed. Among solid tumors patients, late screening and late antiviral therapy of chronic HBV were associated with higher incidence of hepatitis flare (HR 3.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.26-4.79; HR 6.79, 95% CI 4.42-10.41), hepatic impairment (HR 2.96, 95% CI 2.03-4.32; HR 8.03, 95% CI 4.78-13.48), liver failure (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.41-3.40; HR 14.81, 95% CI 6.57-33.42), and HBV-related death (HR 3.29, 95% CI 2.26-4.79; HR 8.30, 95% CI 4.95-13.91) in comparison with early screening and early therapy.Early HBV screening and antiviral therapy could reduce the risk of adverse liver outcomes among chronic HBV patients receiving chemotherapy. Hepatitis B surface antibody-positivity was associated with a decreased risk of liver failure and chronic HBV, late screening or late antiviral therapy were predictors of liver failure for patients with anti-tumor therapy. However, it should be applied cautiously into each types of solid tumors and hematologic malignancies because subgroup analysis according to type of cancer was not designed.Discoid lateral meniscus is one of the most common knee problems in clinical practice. Several radiographic findings have been reported to screen discoid lateral meniscus, but the diagnostic value of those signs varies.We introduce a new method of measurement on plain radiograph for initial screening discoid lateral meniscus and describe its efficacy and correlation to symptomatic discoid lateral meniscus.This is a retrospective case-control study.Seventy-eight arthroscopic proven symptomatic discoid lateral meniscus adult patients plus 73 patients of matched control group were retrospectively reviewed at our institution between 2012 and 2017. We studied their standardized non-weight-bearing knee radiograph anterior-posterior view and measured the following parameters lateral joint space height, lateral tibia spine height, fibular head height, lateral tibia plateau obliquity (LTPO), and lateral condyle convex angle (LCCA).Significant statistical differences were found in the lateral joint space height, lateral tibia spine height, fibular head height, LTPO and LCCA measurements between the 2 groups (P  less then  .05). Also, we found the phenomenon that angle parameters such as LTPO and LCCA had high sensitivities with relatively low specificities compared with height parameters.We propose that LCCA is a new measurement which is statistically larger in discoid meniscus patients. Furthermore, it can be useful for screening discoid lateral meniscus on plain radiograph with its relative high sensitivity.Level of Evidence Level III, Case-control study.A psoas abscess is a rare but potentially devastating condition that is associated with risks of neurological deficits, septic shock, and even death. The current first-line treatment is percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) under imaging guidance, combined with broad-spectrum antibiotics. Surgical drainage should be considered if PCD fails or is impossible.Although many studies on PCD and open surgical drainage have appeared, the outcomes of laparoscopic drainage have rarely been reported. Thus, we laparoscopically drained the psoas abscesses of 6 patients; drainage was complete and we encountered no recurrence or complication. All patients were evaluated by plain radiography, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and laboratory tests; all were followed-up for 1 year.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/dw71177.html  Laparoscopic drainage is a good treatment option when PCD fails, affording all the advantages of open surgery (complete drainage, resection of infected tissue, and contermporaneous treatment of concomitant lesions). Also, laparoscopic drainage is minimally invasive, requires a smaller incision, and allows rapid recovery.Lumbar fusion has been widely used to treat lumbar spondylolisthesis, which can be classified into 5 types according to its approach, including posterolateral fusion (PLF), posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), posterolateral fusion plus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLFplusALIF), and posterolateral fusion plus posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLFplusPLIF). Theoretically, each approach has its own advantages and disadvantages, however, no studies are available to compare them.A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed in this study and the results were illustrated by the mean difference (MD) or odds ratio (OR). Meanwhile, the preferable treatments were indicated using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). All data were analyzed and graphs were plotted using R 3.4.1.A total of 28 literatures were included in this meta-analysis. PLIF was the most effective treatment for pain relief. Conversely, TLIF was the most effective method for reducing vertebral slippage. For patients with isthmic spondylolisthesis (IS), PLIF performed the best in terms of Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score, fusion rate, blood loss, and complication rate. For patients with degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS), TLIF was the best from the points of view of VAS, complication rate, and vertebral slippage reduction.PLIF and TLIF are identified as the optimal treatments for all lumbar spondylolisthesis cases, among which, PLIF may be the preferred choice for pain relief, while TLIF can offer the best outcomes in terms of vertebral slippage reduction. Furthermore, TLIF has displayed the best clinical outcomes and tolerability for DS patients.