Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block with periarticular multimodal drug injection (PMDI) on postoperative pain management and surgical outcomes in patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that PENG block with PMDI would exhibit superior effects on postoperative pain control after THA compared to PMDI alone. Materials and Methods: From April 2022 to February 2023, 58 patients who underwent THA were randomly assigned into two groups: PENG block with PMDI group (n=29) and PMDI-only group (n=29). Primary outcomes were postoperative numeric rating scale (NRS) at rest and during activity at 6, 24, and 48 hours postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were postoperative complications (nausea and vomiting), Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ) score, length of hospital stay, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Harris Hip Score (HHS), and total morphine usage after surgery. Results: There was no significant difference in postoperative pain for either resting NRS or active NRS. Postoperative nausea and vomiting, RCSQ score, length of hospital stay, WOMAC index, HHS, and total morphine usage exhibited no significant differences between the two groups. Conclusion Both groups showed no significant differences in postoperative pain and clinical outcomes, indicating that the addition of PENG block to PMDI does not improve pain management after applying the posterolateral approach of THA. PMDI alone during THA would be an efficient, fast, and safe method for managing postoperative pain. This article was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (Gov ID: NCT05320913).

Objective: To compare the outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) screening combined with ultrasound (US) with those of digital mammography (DM) combined with US in women with dense breasts. Materials and Methods: A retrospective database search identified consecutive asymptomatic women with dense breasts who underwent breast cancer screening with DBT or DM and whole-breast US simultaneously between June 2016 and July 2019. Women who underwent DBT + US (DBT cohort) and DM + US (DM cohort) were matched using 1:2 ratio according to mammographic density, age, menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, and a family history of breast cancer. The cancer detection rate (CDR) per 1000 screening examinations, abnormal interpretation rate (AIR), sensitivity, and specificity were compared. Results: A total of 863 women in the DBT cohort were matched with 1726 women in the DM cohort (median age, 53 years; interquartile range, 40–78 years) and 26 breast cancers (9 in the DBT cohort and 17 in the DM cohort) were identified. The DBT and DM cohorts showed comparable CDR (10.4 [9 of 863; 95% confidence interval {CI}: 4.8–19.7] vs. 9.8 [17 of 1726;95% CI: 5.7–15.7] per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.889). DBT cohort showed a higher AIR than the DM cohort (31.6% [273 of 863; 95% CI: 28.5%–34.9%] vs. 22.4% [387 of 1726; 95% CI: 20.5%–24.5%]; P < 0.001). The sensitivity for both cohorts was 100%. In women with negative findings on DBT or DM, supplemental US yielded similar CDRs in both DBT and DM cohorts (4.0 vs. 3.3 per 1000 examinations, respectively; P = 0.803) and higher AIR in the DBT cohort (24.8% [188 of 758; 95% CI: 21.8%–28.0%] vs. 16.9% [257 of 1516; 95% CI: 15.1%–18.9%; P < 0.001). Conclusion DBT screening combined with US showed comparable CDR but lower specificity than DM screening combined with US in women with dense breasts.

Objective: To conduct a simulation study to determine whether artificial intelligence (AI)-aided mammography reading can reduce unnecessary recalls while maintaining cancer detection ability in women recalled after mammography screening. Materials and Methods: A retrospective reader study was performed by screening mammographies of 793 women (mean age ± standard deviation, 50 ± 9 years) recalled to obtain supplemental mammographic views regarding screening mammographydetected abnormalities between January 2016 and December 2019 at two screening centers. Initial screening mammography examinations were interpreted by three dedicated breast radiologists sequentially, case by case, with and without AI aid, in a single session. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and recall rate for breast cancer diagnosis were obtained and compared between the two reading modes. Results: Fifty-four mammograms with cancer (35 invasive cancers and 19 ductal carcinomas in situ) and 739 mammograms with benign or negative findings were included. The reader-averaged AUC improved after AI aid, from 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74–0.85) to 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85–0.94) (p < 0.001). The reader-averaged specificities before and after AI aid were 41.9% (95% CI, 39.3%–44.5%) and 53.9% (95% CI, 50.9%–56.9%), respectively (p < 0.001). The reader-averaged sensitivity was not statistically different between AI-unaided and AI-aided readings: 89.5% (95% CI, 83.1%–95.9%) vs.92.6% (95% CI, 86.2%–99.0%) (p = 0.053), although the sensitivities of the least experienced radiologists before and after AI aid were 79.6% (43 of 54 [95% CI, 66.5%–89.4%]) and 90.7% (49 of 54 [95% CI, 79.7%–96.9%]), respectively (p = 0.031). With AI aid, the reader-averaged recall rate decreased by from 60.4% (95% CI, 57.8%–62.9%) to 49.5% (95% CI, 46.5%–52.4%) (p < 0.001). Conclusion AI-aided reading reduced the number of recalls and improved the diagnostic performance in our simulation using women initially recalled for supplemental mammographic views after mammography screening.

We aimed to investigate associations of dietary diversity (DD) with gut microbial diversity and the development of hen's egg allergy (HEA) in infants. We enrolled 68 infants in a highrisk group and 32 infants in a control group based on a family history of allergic diseases. All infants were followed from birth until 12 months of age. We collected infant feeding data, and DD was defined using 3 measures: the World Health Organization definition of minimum DD, food group diversity, and food allergen diversity. Gut microbiome profiles and expression of cytokines were evaluated by bacterial 16S rRNA sequencing and real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. High DD scores at 3 and 4 months were associated with a lower risk of developing HEA in the high-risk group, but not in the control group. In the high-risk group, high DD scores at 3, 4, and 5 months of age were associated with an increase in Chao1 index at 6 months. We found that the gene expression of IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, and IL-8 were higher among infants who had lower DD scores compared to those who had higher DD scores in high-risk infants. Additionally, high-risk infants with a higher FAD score at 5 months of age showed a reduced gene expression of IL-13. Increasing DD within 6 months of life may increase gut microbial diversity, and thus reduce the development of HEA in infants with a family history of allergic diseases.

Objective: To compare the performance of simulated abbreviated breast MRI (AB-MRI) and full diagnostic (FD)-MRI in distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions detected by MRI and investigate the features of discrepant lesions of the two protocols. Materials and Methods: An AB-MRI set with single first postcontrast images was retrospectively obtained from an FD-MRI cohort of 111 lesions (34 malignant, 77 benign) detected by contralateral breast MRI in 111 women (mean age, 49.8. ± 9.8;range, 28–75 years) with recently diagnosed breast cancer. Five blinded readers independently classified the likelihood of malignancy using Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessments. McNemar tests and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) analyses were performed. The imaging and pathologic features of the discrepant lesions of the two protocols were analyzed. Results: The sensitivity of AB-MRI for lesion characterization tended to be lower than that of FD-MRI for all readers (58.8– 82.4% vs. 79.4–100%), although the findings of only two readers were significantly different (p < 0.05). The specificity of AB-MRI for lesion characterization was higher than that of FD-MRI for 80% of readers (39.0–74.0% vs. 19.5–45.5%, p ≤ 0.001). The AUC of AB-MRI was comparable to that of FD-MRI for all readers (p > 0.05). Fifteen percent (5/34) of the cancers were false-negatives on AB-MRI. More suspicious margins or internal enhancement on the delayed phase images were related to the discrepancies. Conclusion The overall performance of AB-MRI was similar to that of FD-MRI in distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions. AB-MRI showed lower sensitivity and higher specificity than FD-MRI, as 15% of the cancers were misclassified compared to FD-MRI.