Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: The removal of a well-fixed acetabular cup is a challenging, labor-intensive, and time-consuming step during revision hip arthroplasty. Although the advent of the manual osteotome, Explant, has simplified the procedure, it is still a stressful process as it dissipates the surgeon’s strength and time and risks an iatrogenic pelvic fracture. Recently, EZX, a powered tool for extraction of well-fixed acetabular cups with semicircular blade was invented. This study aimed to compare Explant and EZX in an experimental condition for their efficacy and safety. Methods: Cementless acetabular cups were press-fitted to 20 hemipelvic polyurethane models using foam adhesives. Ten cups were removed with each tool for comparison of the elapsed time, loads on the entire hemipelvis, periacetabular strain and temperature, volume of periacetabular bone removed, and diameter of the remaining acetabular rim. Strains and loads were quantitatively assessed using strain gauges and load cells for precise and reliable measurements. Results: The mean duration required to remove a well-fixed cup with EZX was 38.5 seconds (range, 25–55), whereas that with Explant was 543.7 seconds (range, 214–1,051) (p < 0.001). The load on the entire hemipelvis with EZX (mean, 9.1 kgf; range, 6.4–11.3) was 33% lower than that with Explant (mean, 13.6 kgf; range, 9.2–17.1) (p < 0.001). The periacetabular peak strains at the 3 positions with EZX were significantly lower than those with Explant (p < 0.001). The temperature during the removal did not differ significantly between the 2 tools. Although the mean volume of bone loss with Explant was 2.4 mL more than that with EZX (p < 0.001), the mean diameters of the remaining acetabular rim were not significantly different, measuring 54.1 mm with both tools. Conclusions The present experiment revealed that a well-fixed cup could be removed using a powered tool with less strength and time and less load on the entire pelvis. Although the powered tool removed a larger volume of bone, the diameters of the remaining acetabular rims were equivalent. This tool may help surgeons remove well-fixed cups in a short time and reduce the deforming load on the bone around the cup without increasing the size of the subsequent reconstruction cup.

Background: The exposome encompasses all factors people encounter through life, with the skin constantly exposed. While particulate matter (PM) and sleep deprivation are known to contribute to barrier dysfunction, their combined effects remain unclear. Objective: To evaluate the independent and combined effects of PM exposure and short-term sleep deprivation on skin barrier function. Methods: Forty healthy Korean women (aged 24–58 years) were enrolled in this study. Forearms were divided into 4 sites: control, PM exposure, sleep deprivation, and PM plus sleep deprivation. Parameters such as trans-epidermal water loss (TEWL), hydration, elasticity, roughness, and redness were measured at baseline and post-exposure. RNA sequencing and reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction were conducted on tape-stripped skin samples. Results: PM exposure significantly increased TEWL (+25.59%, p<0.01), roughness (+21.9%, p<0.01), and redness (+13.7%, p<0.0001) while reducing elasticity (−3.98%, p<0.01). Sleep deprivation modestly reduced elasticity (−1.39%, p<0.05) without affecting other parameters.Combined PM and sleep deprivation did not further exacerbate barrier dysfunction compared to PM alone. RNA sequencing revealed reduced FLG and LORICRIN expression and upregulated endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress markers (HSP90B1, CANX) in both PM and sleep deprivation conditions. Conclusion PM exposure impaired skin barrier function, while short-term sleep deprivation alone did not significantly affect the barrier, either independently or in combination with PM.However, it was observed that the sleep deprivation-only, while not directly causing barrier damage, induced changes in ER stress-related gene expression in tape-stripped skin samples, like the PM exposure-only. This suggests that such signaling pathways could potentially exacerbate skin barrier deterioration.

Background: Bulky or multiple lymph node (LN) metastases are associated with poor prognosis in cervical cancer, and the size or number of LN metastases is not yet reflected in the staging system and therapeutic strategy. Although the therapeutic effects of surgical resection of bulky LNs before standard treatment have been reported in several retrospective studies, wellplanned randomized clinical studies are lacking. Therefore, the aim of the Korean Gynecologic Oncology Group (KGOG) 1047/DEBULK trial is to investigate whether the debulking surgery of bulky or multiple LNs prior to concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CCRT) improves the survival rate of patients with cervical cancer IIICr diagnosed by imaging tests. Methods The KGOG 1047/DEBULK trial is a phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving patients with bulky or multiple LN metastases in cervical cancer IIICr. This study will include patients with a short-axis diameter of a pelvic or para-aortic LN ≥2 cm or ≥3 LNs with a short-axis diameter ≥1 cm and for whom CCRT is planned. The treatment arms will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either receive CCRT (control arm) or undergo surgical debulking of bulky or multiple LNs before CCRT (experimental arm). CCRT consists of extended-field external beam radiotherapy/pelvic radiotherapy, brachytherapy and LN boost, and weekly chemotherapy with cisplatin (40 mg/m 2 ), 4–6 times administered intravenously.The primary endpoint will be 3-year progression-free survival rate. The secondary endpoints will be 3-year overall survival rate, treatment-related complications, and accuracy of radiological diagnosis of bulky or multiple LNs.

Background: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using secondgeneration drug-eluting stents (DESs). Methods: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). Results: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). Conclusion The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES.