Background: Anterior dislocation in epilepsy patients is relatively severe, difficult to treat, and prone to recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy patients who had anterior shoulder instability and to compare the results of the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy and non-epileptic groups. Methods: A total of 57 shoulders (34 dominant) in 55 patients (18–50 years, 45 men and 10 women) with anterior glenohumeral instability were included in the study and the average follow-up was 24 months. Out of 21 epilepsy patients (23 shoulders), 11 were treated with the open Latarjet procedure and 12 with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Additionally, comparisons were made between the 34 non-epileptic patients who underwent the open Latarjet procedure and the epilepsy patients who underwent the same procedure. Results: In the epilepsy group, all 12 patients who underwent Bankart repair had on-track lesions, and all 11 patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure had off-track lesions. In the non-epilepsy group, all cases were off-track lesions. In the epilepsy group, there was no significant difference in the postoperative clinical outcome and recurrence rate between the Bankart repair and Latarjet procedure groups. In the Latarjet group, postoperative re-dislocation rate in the non-epilepsy patients was 14% (5/34 cases), compared to 45% (5/11 cases) in the epilepsy patients, 4 of which 4 occurred during seizures. It was 41% in the Bankart repair group for on-track lesions, which was similar to the recurrence rate after the Latarjet for off-track lesions in the epilepsy group. Conclusions After the Latarjet procedure, the functional outcomes in the epilepsy group were similar to those in the non-epilepsy group, except for the higher re-dislocation rate. With either of the surgical procedures, the re-dislocation rate secondary to seizures was very high. Despite the presence of on-track lesions, the Latarjet procedure would be more preferrable for anterior stabilization in epilepsy patients, in view of the high recurrence rate with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: Anterior dislocation in epilepsy patients is relatively severe, difficult to treat, and prone to recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy patients who had anterior shoulder instability and to compare the results of the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy and non-epileptic groups. Methods: A total of 57 shoulders (34 dominant) in 55 patients (18–50 years, 45 men and 10 women) with anterior glenohumeral instability were included in the study and the average follow-up was 24 months. Out of 21 epilepsy patients (23 shoulders), 11 were treated with the open Latarjet procedure and 12 with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Additionally, comparisons were made between the 34 non-epileptic patients who underwent the open Latarjet procedure and the epilepsy patients who underwent the same procedure. Results: In the epilepsy group, all 12 patients who underwent Bankart repair had on-track lesions, and all 11 patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure had off-track lesions. In the non-epilepsy group, all cases were off-track lesions. In the epilepsy group, there was no significant difference in the postoperative clinical outcome and recurrence rate between the Bankart repair and Latarjet procedure groups. In the Latarjet group, postoperative re-dislocation rate in the non-epilepsy patients was 14% (5/34 cases), compared to 45% (5/11 cases) in the epilepsy patients, 4 of which 4 occurred during seizures. It was 41% in the Bankart repair group for on-track lesions, which was similar to the recurrence rate after the Latarjet for off-track lesions in the epilepsy group. Conclusions After the Latarjet procedure, the functional outcomes in the epilepsy group were similar to those in the non-epilepsy group, except for the higher re-dislocation rate. With either of the surgical procedures, the re-dislocation rate secondary to seizures was very high. Despite the presence of on-track lesions, the Latarjet procedure would be more preferrable for anterior stabilization in epilepsy patients, in view of the high recurrence rate with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Background: Anterior dislocation in epilepsy patients is relatively severe, difficult to treat, and prone to recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy patients who had anterior shoulder instability and to compare the results of the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy and non-epileptic groups. Methods: A total of 57 shoulders (34 dominant) in 55 patients (18–50 years, 45 men and 10 women) with anterior glenohumeral instability were included in the study and the average follow-up was 24 months. Out of 21 epilepsy patients (23 shoulders), 11 were treated with the open Latarjet procedure and 12 with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Additionally, comparisons were made between the 34 non-epileptic patients who underwent the open Latarjet procedure and the epilepsy patients who underwent the same procedure. Results: In the epilepsy group, all 12 patients who underwent Bankart repair had on-track lesions, and all 11 patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure had off-track lesions. In the non-epilepsy group, all cases were off-track lesions. In the epilepsy group, there was no significant difference in the postoperative clinical outcome and recurrence rate between the Bankart repair and Latarjet procedure groups. In the Latarjet group, postoperative re-dislocation rate in the non-epilepsy patients was 14% (5/34 cases), compared to 45% (5/11 cases) in the epilepsy patients, 4 of which 4 occurred during seizures. It was 41% in the Bankart repair group for on-track lesions, which was similar to the recurrence rate after the Latarjet for off-track lesions in the epilepsy group. Conclusions After the Latarjet procedure, the functional outcomes in the epilepsy group were similar to those in the non-epilepsy group, except for the higher re-dislocation rate. With either of the surgical procedures, the re-dislocation rate secondary to seizures was very high. Despite the presence of on-track lesions, the Latarjet procedure would be more preferrable for anterior stabilization in epilepsy patients, in view of the high recurrence rate with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Background: Anterior dislocation in epilepsy patients is relatively severe, difficult to treat, and prone to recurrence. The purpose of this study was to compare the results of arthroscopic Bankart repair and the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy patients who had anterior shoulder instability and to compare the results of the open Latarjet procedure in epilepsy and non-epileptic groups. Methods: A total of 57 shoulders (34 dominant) in 55 patients (18–50 years, 45 men and 10 women) with anterior glenohumeral instability were included in the study and the average follow-up was 24 months. Out of 21 epilepsy patients (23 shoulders), 11 were treated with the open Latarjet procedure and 12 with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Additionally, comparisons were made between the 34 non-epileptic patients who underwent the open Latarjet procedure and the epilepsy patients who underwent the same procedure. Results: In the epilepsy group, all 12 patients who underwent Bankart repair had on-track lesions, and all 11 patients who underwent the Latarjet procedure had off-track lesions. In the non-epilepsy group, all cases were off-track lesions. In the epilepsy group, there was no significant difference in the postoperative clinical outcome and recurrence rate between the Bankart repair and Latarjet procedure groups. In the Latarjet group, postoperative re-dislocation rate in the non-epilepsy patients was 14% (5/34 cases), compared to 45% (5/11 cases) in the epilepsy patients, 4 of which 4 occurred during seizures. It was 41% in the Bankart repair group for on-track lesions, which was similar to the recurrence rate after the Latarjet for off-track lesions in the epilepsy group. Conclusions After the Latarjet procedure, the functional outcomes in the epilepsy group were similar to those in the non-epilepsy group, except for the higher re-dislocation rate. With either of the surgical procedures, the re-dislocation rate secondary to seizures was very high. Despite the presence of on-track lesions, the Latarjet procedure would be more preferrable for anterior stabilization in epilepsy patients, in view of the high recurrence rate with arthroscopic Bankart repair.

Purpose: Finasteride and dutasteride are used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer. Finasteride blocks only the type 2 form of 5-alpha-reductase, whereas dutasteride blocks both type 1 and 2 forms of the enzyme. Previous studies suggest the possibility that dutasteride may be superior to finasteride in preventing prostate cancer. We directly compared the effects of finasteride and dutasteride on the risk of prostate cancer in patients with BPH using a pooled analysis of 15 real-world databases. Materials and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cohort study of new-users of finasteride and dutasteride. We include patients who were prescribed 5 mg finasteride or dutasteride for the first time to treat BPH and had at least 180 days of prescription. We excluded patients with a history of prostate cancer or a prostate-specific antigen level ≥ 4 ng/mL before the study drug prescription. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the hazard ratio (HR) for prostate cancer after propensity score (PS) matching. Results: A total of 8,284 patients of new-users of finasteride and 8,670 patients of new-users of dutasteride were included across the 15 databases. In the overall population, compared to dutasteride, finasteride was associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer in both on-treatment and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods. After 1:1 PS matching, 4,897 patients using finasteride and 4,897 patients using dutasteride were enrolled in the present study. No significant differences were observed for risk of prostate cancer between finasteride and dutasteride both on-treatment (HR=0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44–1.00; p=0.051) and intent-to-treat time-at-risk periods (HR=0.87, 95% CI: 0.67–1.14; p=0.310). Conclusions Using real-world databases, the present study demonstrated that dutasteride was not associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer than finasteride in patients with BPH.

Purpose: This study aims to analyze the learning curve of hand-assisted laparoscopic living donor nephrectomy (HLDN) conducted by a trained gastrointestinal surgeon. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on the perioperative clinical data of 96 consecutive patients who underwent HLDN from May 2013 to March 2023. The learning curve was evaluated using the cumulative sum (CUSUM) test based on operation time and risk-adjusted CUSUM for postoperative complications. Patients were divided into three groups (novice, development, and competency phases) based on changes in operation time. Patient demographics and perioperative outcomes were compared between each group. Results: Among the patients, 35 were male, with a mean age of 48.9 ± 11.3 years and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 24.5 ± 3.2 kg/m 2 . The novice phase (phase 1) included the first 30 cases, with the development phase (phase 2) up to the 65th case. Operation times were significantly different across phases, averaging 263.2 ± 33.4, 211.1 ± 34.4, and 161.1 ± 31.3 minutes for phases 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P < 0.001). Blood loss decreased gradually across phases (phase 1, 264.7 ± 144.4 mL; phase 2, 239.7 ± 166.3 mL; phase 3, 198.8 ± 103.5 mL), though not statistically significant. BMI impacted operation time only in phase 1. Overall postoperative complications occurred in 13 cases (Clavien-Dindo grade I, 4 cases;grade II, 9 cases), with no significant differences across phases. Conclusion HLDN can be safely performed by a trained gastrointestinal surgeon, with approximately 30 cases needed to achieve proficiency.