ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Still, little is known about microbial dysbiosis in oropharyngeal and laryngeal tissue as risk factor for development of local squamous cell carcinoma. The site-specific microbiota at these regions in healthy and cancer tissue and their modulation by environmental factors need to be defined. METHODS: The local microbiota of cancer tissue and healthy controls was profiled by 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing and statistical analysis using 111 oropharyngeal and 72 laryngeal intraoperative swabs. RESULTS: Oropharynx and larynx harbor distinct microbial communities. Clear effects of both smoking and cancer were seen in the oropharynx whereas effects in the larynx were minor. CONCLUSION: The distinct microbial communities at larynx and oropharynx partially explain why the effects of cancer and smoking were distinct at those sites. Thus, the use of microbiota supposed to mirror community changes in another target location should be avoided and more studies on the actual cancerous environment are necessary.
Subject(s)
Carcinoma, Squamous Cell , Head and Neck Neoplasms , Laryngeal Neoplasms , Larynx , Microbiota , Oropharyngeal Neoplasms , Humans , RNA, Ribosomal, 16S/genetics , Carcinoma, Squamous Cell/pathology , Larynx/pathology , Smoking/adverse effects , Oropharynx/pathology , Oropharyngeal Neoplasms/pathologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal pressure (IPP) counteracts the diversion of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) from the cranial to the peritoneal compartment during ventriculoperitoneal shunting. Animal studies suggest that the intrinsic IPP exceeds the intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure. The intrinsic IPP in mobile patients is relevant for shunt therapy, but data about it is not available. METHODS: The IPP was measured indirectly in 25 mobile subjects (13 female) by applying a standard intravesical pressure measurement technique. Measurements were carried out in reference to the navel (supine position) and the xiphoid (upright position). Results were adjusted for the intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure and correlated afterward with general body measures. RESULTS: The corrected mean (SD) IPP measured in the supine position was 4.4 (4.5) cm H2O, and the mean (SD) upright IPP was 1.6 (7.8) cm H2O (p = 0.02). A positive correlation was found between the body mass index (BMI) and the IPP in the upright (r = 0.51) and supine (r = 0.65) body positions, and between the abdominal circumference and the IPP in the supine position (r = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: The intrinsic IPP in mobile subjects exceeds the intraperitoneal hydrostatic pressure. Thus, the intrinsic IPP counteracts the diversion of CSF into the peritoneal compartment. The intrinsic IPP is correlated with mobile patients' general body measures.
