1.Robotic and Navigation Systems in Orthopaedic Surgery: How Much Do Our Patients Understand?.
Shivan S JASSIM ; Harry BENJAMIN-LAING ; Stephen L DOUGLAS ; Fares S HADDAD
Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery 2014;6(4):462-467
BACKGROUND: Technology in orthopaedic surgery has become more widespread in the past 20 years, with emerging evidence of its benefits in arthroplasty. Although patients are aware of benefits of conventional joint replacement, little is known on patients' knowledge of the prevalence, benefits or drawbacks of surgery involving navigation or robotic systems. METHODS: In an outpatient arthroplasty clinic, 100 consecutive patients were approached and given questionnaires to assess their knowledge of navigation and robotics in orthopaedic surgery. Participation in the survey was voluntary. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients volunteered to participate in the survey, mean age 56.2 years (range, 19 to 88 years; 52 female, 46 male). Forty percent of patients thought more than 30% of National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic operations involved navigation or robotics; 80% believed this was the same level or less than the private sector. One-third believed most of an operation could be performed independently by a robotic/navigation system. Amongst perceived benefits of navigation/robotic surgery was more accurate surgery (47%), quicker surgery (50%), and making the surgeon's job easier (52%). Sixty-nine percent believed navigation/robotics was more expensive and 20% believed it held no benefit against conventional surgery, with only 9% believing it led to longer surgery. Almost 50% would not mind at least some of their operation being performed with use of robotics/navigation. CONCLUSIONS: Although few patients were familiar with this new technology, there appeared to be a strong consensus it was quicker and more accurate than conventional surgery. Many patients appear to believe navigation and robotics in orthopaedic surgery is largely the preserve of the private sector. This study demonstrates public knowledge of such new technologies is limited and a need to inform patients of the relative merits and drawbacks of such surgery prior to their more widespread implementation.
Adult
;
Aged
;
Aged, 80 and over
;
*Comprehension
;
Cross-Sectional Studies
;
Female
;
Health Care Surveys
;
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
;
Humans
;
Male
;
Middle Aged
;
Orthopedic Procedures/*psychology
;
Questionnaires
;
Robotic Surgical Procedures/psychology
;
Surgery, Computer-Assisted/*psychology
;
Young Adult
2.Identification of new genetic risk factors for prostate cancer.
Michelle GUY ; Zsofia KOTE-JARAI ; Graham G GILES ; Ali Amin Al OLAMA ; Sarah K JUGURNAUTH ; Shani MULHOLLAND ; Daniel A LEONGAMORNLERT ; Stephen M EDWARDS ; Jonathan MORRISON ; Helen I FIELD ; Melissa C SOUTHEY ; Gianluca SEVERI ; Jenny L DONOVAN ; Freddie C HAMDY ; David P DEARNALEY ; Kenneth R MUIR ; Charmaine SMITH ; Melisa BAGNATO ; Audrey T ARDERN-JONES ; Amanda L HALL ; Lynne T O'BRIEN ; Beatrice N GEHR-SWAIN ; Rosemary A WILKINSON ; Angela COX ; Sarah LEWIS ; Paul M BROWN ; Sameer G JHAVAR ; Malgorzata TYMRAKIEWICZ ; Artitaya LOPHATANANON ; Sarah L BRYANT ; null ; null ; null ; Alan HORWICH ; Robert A HUDDART ; Vincent S KHOO ; Christopher C PARKER ; Christopher J WOODHOUSE ; Alan THOMPSON ; Tim CHRISTMAS ; Chris OGDEN ; Cyril FISHER ; Charles JAMESON ; Colin S COOPER ; Dallas R ENGLISH ; John L HOPPER ; David E NEAL ; Douglas F EASTON ; Rosalind A EELES
Asian Journal of Andrology 2009;11(1):49-55
There is evidence that a substantial part of genetic predisposition to prostate cancer (PCa) may be due to lower penetrance genes which are found by genome-wide association studies. We have recently conducted such a study and seven new regions of the genome linked to PCa risk have been identified. Three of these loci contain candidate susceptibility genes: MSMB, LMTK2 and KLK2/3. The MSMB and KLK2/3 genes may be useful for PCa screening, and the LMTK2 gene might provide a potential therapeutic target. Together with results from other groups, there are now 23 germline genetic variants which have been reported. These results have the potential to be developed into a genetic test. However, we consider that marketing of tests to the public is premature, as PCa risk can not be evaluated fully at this stage and the appropriate screening protocols need to be developed. Follow-up validation studies, as well as studies to explore the psychological implications of genetic profile testing, will be vital prior to roll out into healthcare.
Genetic Predisposition to Disease
;
genetics
;
Genetic Testing
;
Humans
;
Kallikreins
;
genetics
;
Male
;
Membrane Proteins
;
genetics
;
Prostatic Neoplasms
;
diagnosis
;
genetics
;
Prostatic Secretory Proteins
;
genetics
;
Protein-Serine-Threonine Kinases
;
genetics
;
Risk Factors