| 121. |
- Sauvage, Justine, et al.
(author)
-
The contribution of water radiolysis to marine sedimentary life
- 2021
-
In: NATURE COMMUNICATIONS. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Water radiolysis continuously produces H-2 and oxidized chemicals in wet sediment and rock. Radiolytic H-2 has been identified as the primary electron donor (food) for microorganisms in continental aquifers kilometers below Earth's surface. Radiolytic products may also be significant for sustaining life in subseafloor sediment and subsurface environments of other planets. However, the extent to which most subsurface ecosystems rely on radiolytic products has been poorly constrained, due to incomplete understanding of radiolytic chemical yields in natural environments. Here we show that all common marine sediment types catalyse radiolytic H-2 production, amplifying yields by up to 27X relative to pure water. In electron equivalents, the global rate of radiolytic H-2 production in marine sediment appears to be 1-2% of the global organic flux to the seafloor. However, most organic matter is consumed at or near the seafloor, whereas radiolytic H-2 is produced at all sediment depths. Comparison of radiolytic H-2 consumption rates to organic oxidation rates suggests that water radiolysis is the principal source of biologically accessible energy for microbial communities in marine sediment older than a few million years. Where water permeates similarly catalytic material on other worlds, life may also be sustained by water radiolysis. The extent to which chemical products of water radiolysis could sustain subseafloor microbial life is unknown. Here the authors show that sediment catalyzes radiolytic production of H-2 and oxidants, providing the primary energy source for life in ancient marine sediment.
|
|
| 122. |
- van Bodegraven, Eduard A., et al.
(author)
-
Minimally invasive robot-assisted and laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy in a pan-European registry a retrospective cohort study
- 2024
-
In: International Journal of Surgery. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 1743-9191 .- 1743-9159. ; 110:6, s. 3554-3561
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: International guidelines recommend monitoring the use and outcome of minimally invasive pancreatic surgery (MIPS). However, data from prospective international audits on minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) are lacking. This study examined the use and outcome of robot-assisted (RDP) and laparoscopic (LDP) distal pancreatectomy in the E-MIPS registry. Patients and methods: Post-hoc analysis in a prospective audit on MIPS, including consecutive patients undergoing MIDP in 83 centers from 19 European countries (01-01-2019/31-12-2021). Primary outcomes included intraoperative events (grade 1: excessive blood loss, grade 2: conversion/change in operation, grade 3: intraoperative death), major morbidity, and in-hospital/30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analyses identified high-risk groups for intraoperative events. RDP and LDP were compared in the total cohort and high-risk groups. Results: Overall, 1672 patients undergoing MIDP were included; 606 (36.2%) RDP and 1066 (63.8%) LDP. The annual use of RDP increased from 30.5% to 42.6% (P<0.001). RDP was associated with fewer grade 2 intraoperative events compared with LDP (9.6% vs. 16.8%, P<0.001), with longer operating time (238 vs. 201 min, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between RDP and LDP regarding major morbidity (23.4% vs. 25.9%, P=0.264) and in-hospital/30-day mortality (0.3% vs. 0.8%, P=0.344). Three high-risk groups were identified; BMI greater than 25 kg/m(2), previous abdominal surgery, and vascular involvement. In each group, RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative times. Conclusion: This European registry-based study demonstrated favorable outcomes for MIDP, with mortality rates below 1%. LDP remains the predominant approach, whereas the use of RDP is increasing. RDP was associated with fewer conversions and longer operative time, including in high-risk subgroups. Future randomized trials should confirm these findings and assess cost differences.
|
|
