Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a progressive and lethal disease, caused by X-linked mutations of the dystrophin encoding gene. The lack of dystrophin leads to muscle weakness, degeneration, fibrosis, and progressive loss of skeletal, cardiac, and respiratory muscle function resulting in premature death due to the cardiac and respiratory failure. There is no cure for DMD and current therapies neither cure nor arrest disease progression. Thus, there is an urgent need to develop new approaches and safer therapies for DMD patients. We have previously reported functional improvements which correlated with increased dystrophin expression following transplantation of dystrophin expressing chimeric (DEC) cells of myoblast origin to the mdx mouse models of DMD. In this study, we demonstrated that systemic-intraosseous transplantation of DEC human cells derived from myoblasts of normal and DMD-affected donors, increased dystrophin expression in cardiac, respiratory, and skeletal muscles of the mdx/scid mouse model of DMD. DEC transplant correlated with preservation of ejection fraction and fractional shortening on echocardiography, improved respiratory function on plethysmography, and improved strength and function of the limb skeletal muscles. Enhanced function was associated with improved muscle histopathology, revealing reduced mdx pathology, fibrosis, decreased inflammation, and preserved muscle morphology and architecture. Our findings confirm that DECs generate a systemic protective effect in DMD-affected target organs. Therefore, DECs represents a novel therapeutic approach with the potential to preserve or enhance multiorgan function of the skeletal, cardiac, and respiratory muscles critical for the well-being of DMD patients.

No abstract

Objectives Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can irreversibly damage the lungs and could possibly increase the risk of surgical treatment of lung cancer. The study aimed to assess the relationship between preoperative COVID-19 and complications and early outcomes of lung cancer surgery. Methods This single-center cohort study included 444 patients who underwent lobectomy or segmentectomy for primary lung cancer from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021. The exclusion criteria were pneumonectomy, extended resection, and wedge resection. The groups of patients with (n = 72) and without (n = 372) the history of COVID-19 prior to surgery were compared. The groups were similar in terms of distribution of baseline, surgical and histopathological characteristics. The primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative complications. Secondary endpoints were outcomes at discharge and at 90 days. Results The incidence of postoperative complications did not differ between the groups of patients with and without COVID-19 history (30.6% vs 29.3%, p = 0.831). Outcomes at discharge and at 90 days after surgery did not differ between the groups. Among the patients with and without prior COVID-19, 97.2 and 99.5% were alive at discharge (p = 0.125), and 97.2% and 98.1% ninety days after surgery (p = 0.644), respectively. Patients with COVID-19 history more often required re-drainage (6.9% v 2.2%, p = 0.044) and reoperation (5.6 v 1.3%, p = 0.042). Conclusions COVID-19 history is not related to the general incidence of complications, outcomes at discharge from the hospital, and at 90-days after surgery.

The outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer surgery are influenced by the quality of lymphadenectomy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different energy devices on lymphadenectomy quality and identify additional influencing factors. This secondary analysis of the prospective randomized trial data (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03125798) compared patients who underwent thoracoscopic lobectomy with the LigaSure device (study group, n = 96) and monopolar device (control group, n = 94). The primary endpoint was the lobe-specific mediastinal lymphadenectomy. Lobe-specific mediastinal lymphadenectomy criteria were met in 60.4% and 38.3% of patients in the study and control groups, respectively (p = 0.002). In addition, in the study group, the median number of mediastinal lymph node stations removed was higher (4 vs. 3, p = 0.017), and complete resection was more often achieved (91.7% vs. 80.9%, p = 0.030). Logistic regression analysis indicated that lymphadenectomy quality was positively associated with the use of the LigaSure device (OR, 2.729; 95% CI, 1.446 to 5.152; p = 0.002) and female sex (OR, 2.012; 95% CI, 1.058 to 3.829; p = 0.033), but negatively associated with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR, 0.781; 95% CI, 0.620 to 0.986; p = 0.037), left lower lobectomy (OR, 0.263; 95% CI, 0.096 to 0.726; p = 0.010) and middle lobectomy (OR, 0.136; 95% CI, 0.031 to 0.606, p = 0.009). This study found that using the LigaSure device can improve the quality of lymphadenectomy in lung cancer patients and also identified other factors that affect the quality of lymphadenectomy. These findings contribute to improving lung cancer surgical treatment outcomes and provide valuable insights for clinical practice.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a commonly performed minimally invasive technique for diagnosing mediastinal pathologies. Currently, many needle types are being developed to improve the accuracy of the final diagnosis. Our study aimed to assess the possible advantages and disadvantages between the 22-gauge ProCore ® needle and the standard 22-gauge needles.Methods: In this prospective study, we enrolled a group of 363 EBUS-TBNA patients. For each patient, we used either the ProCore ® needle or the standard one. We used the ProCore ® needle in 51 patients and the standard needle in 312 patients. When a diagnosis could not be made, it was subsequently established with a surgical biopsy. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the biopsy for both needle types.Results: By using EBUS-TBNA, a diagnosis was established in 306 patients (84.3%). The rates of the final diagnoses in ProCore ® and standard needle groups were 92.2% and 83.0% (P=0.14), respectively.The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for ProCore ® vs. standard needles did not differ and were 89.2% vs. 79.3%, 100.0% vs. 95.7%, 100.0% vs. 98.5%, and 77.8% vs. 57.3%, respectively. A total of 57 patients required mediastinoscopy or surgical biopsy to obtain a final pathology. However, this number was not significantly different between the needles [ProCore ® (7.8%) vs. standard (17%), P=0.26].Conclusions: Both types of needles demonstrated very high diagnostic efficiency for malignancy, and there was no significant advantage of the ProCore ® over the standard needle.