Periarticular fracture of the shoulder is a common type of fractures in the elderly. Postoperative adverse events such as internal fixation failure, humeral head ischemic necrosis and upper limb dysfunction occur frequently, which seriously endangers the exercise and health of the elderly. Compared with the fracture with normal bone mass, the osteoporotic periarticular fracture of the shoulder is complicated with slow healing and poor rehabilitation, so the clinical management becomes more difficult. At present, there is no targeted guideline or consensus for this type of fracture in China. In such context, experts from Youth Osteoporosis Group of Chinese Orthopedic Association, Orthopedic Expert Committee of Geriatrics Branch of Chinese Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics, Osteoporosis Group of Youth Committee of Chinese Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and Osteoporosis Committee of Shanghai Association of Chinese Integrative Medicine developed the Chinese expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of osteoporotic periarticular fracture of the shoulder in the elderly ( version 2023). Nine recommendations were put forward from the aspects of diagnosis, treatment strategies and rehabilitation of osteoporotic periarticular fracture of the shoulder, hoping to promote the standardized, systematic and personalized diagnosis and treatment concept and improve functional outcomes and quality of life in elderly patients with osteoporotic periarticular fracture of the shoulder.

Chronic refractory wound (CRW) is one of the most challengeable issues in clinic due to complex pathogenesis, long course of disease and poor prognosis. Experts need to conduct systematic summary for the diagnosis and treatment of CRW due to complex pathogenesis and poor prognosis, and standard guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of CRW should be created. The Guideline forthe diagnosis and treatment of chronic refractory wounds in orthopedic trauma patients ( version 2023) was created by the expert group organized by the Chinese Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, Chinese Orthopedic Association, Chinese Society of Traumatology, and Trauma Orthopedics and Multiple Traumatology Group of Emergency Resuscitation Committee of Chinese Medical Doctor Association after the clinical problems were chosen based on demand-driven principles and principles of evidence-based medicine. The guideline systematically elaborated CRW from aspects of the epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, postoperative management, complication prevention and comorbidity management, and rehabilitation and health education, and 9 recommendations were finally proposed to provide a reliable clinical reference for the diagnosis and treatment of CRW.

Lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is one of the main complications in patients with traumatic fractures, and for severe patients, the DVT can even affect arterial blood supply, resulting in insufficient limb blood supply. If the thrombus breaks off, pulmonary embolism may occur, with a high mortality. The treatment and rehabilitation strategies of thrombosis in patients with lower extremity fractures have its particularity. DVT in traumatic fractures patients has attracted extensive attention and been largely studied, and the measures for prevention and treatment of DVT are constantly developing. In recent years, a series of thrombosis prevention and treatment guidelines have been updated at home and abroad, but there are still many doubts about the prevention and treatment of DVT in patients with different traumatic fractures. Accordingly, on the basis of summarizing the latest evidence-based medical evidence at home and abroad and the clinical experience of the majority of experts, the authors summarize the clinical treatment and prevention protocols for DVT in patients with traumatic fractures, and make this consensus on the examination and assessment, treatment, prevention and preventive measures for DVT in patients with different fractures so as to provide a practicable approach suitable for China ′s national conditions and improve the prognosis and the life quality of patients.

Objective:To compare the differences of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) positive rate and postoperative complications between transperineal cognitive prostate biopsy (COG-TPBx) and transrectal cognitive prostate biopsy (COG-TRBx) based on biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI).Methods:The data of 276 patients undergoing prostate biopsy from January 2019 to June 2021 in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University were retrospectively reviewed. 157 patients underwent COG-TPBx(TPBx group) and 119 patients underwent COG-TRBx (TRBx group). The average age [(66.39 ± 8.31) vs. (66.30 ± 8.42)years], body mass index (BMI) [(23.85±2.49) vs. (23.68±2.61) kg/m 2], PSA values [9.43(1.47-19.80) vs. 8.94(0.66-19.99) ng/ml], prostate volume [37.92(13.99-167.40) vs. 40.78(11.67-188.21) cm 3], PSA density [0.21(0.04-1.17) vs. 0.20(0.04-1.04) ng/(ml·cm 3)], and suspicious digital rectal examination [17.20% (27/157) vs. 21.10% (25/119) ] were not significantly different between TPBx group and TRBx group. The positive rate of PCa, CsPCa, as well as post-biopsy complications of the two groups were compared. Results:There were no significant differences in the positive rate of PCa [49.68%(78/157) vs. 47.06%(56/119), P=0.666] and CsPCa [38.22%(60/157) vs. 34.45%(41/119), P=0.520] between the two groups. In stratification analysis, TPBx group has a significantly higher positive rate of both PCa [54.69%(35/64)] and CsPCa[43.75%(28/64)] in apex zone than TRBx group[39.62%(21/53) and 20.75%(11/53), all P<0.05). Moreover, the postoperative complications were not significantly different in TPBx group compared to that in TRBx group [10.19% (16/157) vs. 12.61%(15/119), P= 0.567]. Conclusions:Our investigations revealed that the overall positive rate of PCa, CsPCa, and the complications were not statistically different between COG-TPBx and COG-TRBx. COG-TPBx has a significantly higher positive rate of both PCa and CsPCa in apex zone.

Objective:The investigation and research on the application status of Hepatic Venous Pressure Gradient (HVPG) is very important to understand the real situation and future development of this technology in China.Methods:This study comprehensively investigated the basic situation of HVPG technology in China, including hospital distribution, hospital level, annual number of cases, catheters used, average cost, indications and existing problems.Results:According to the survey, there were 70 hospitals in China carrying out HVPG technology in 2021, distributed in 28 provinces (autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central Government). A total of 4 398 cases of HVPG were performed in all the surveyed hospitals in 2021, of which 2 291 cases (52.1%) were tested by HVPG alone. The average cost of HVPG detection was (5 617.2±2 079.4) yuan. 96.3% of the teams completed HVPG detection with balloon method, and most of the teams used thrombectomy balloon catheter (80.3%).Conclusion:Through this investigation, the status of domestic clinical application of HVPG has been clarified, and it has been confirmed that many domestic medical institutions have mastered this technology, but it still needs to continue to promote and popularize HVPG technology in the future.

Objective:To detect the value of utilizing bpMRI in prostate biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer with PSA≤20ng/ml.Methods:The clinical data of 394 patients who underwent prostate biopsy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from November 2017 to October 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Of all the patients, 177 underwent modified systematic biopsy, named TRUS group, 217 patients accepted pre-biopsy bpMRI examination, undergoing modified systematic biopsy if Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) score < 3 or MRI-TRUS cognitive fusion targeted prostate + systematic biopsy if PI-RADS score ≥ 3, named MRI group. The median age of TRUS group was 66 (61, 74) years old, prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 9.52 (7.26, 12.30) ng / ml, and prostate volume (PV) was 36.84 (28.95, 57.72)ml. The median age of MRI group was 66 (59, 72) years old, PSA was 8.84 (6.65, 12.16) ng/ml, and PV was 39.45 (29.25, 58.69)ml. There was no difference in above parameters between the two groups. The χ 2 test was used to compare the detection rate of prostate cancer and clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) between the two groups. Results:There was no significant difference in the detection rates of prostate cancer between TRUS group and MRI group [51.41% (91/177) vs. 48.39% (105/ 217), P = 0.550], but the detection rates of CsPCa were significantly different [26.55% (47/177) vs. 36.41% (79/217), P = 0.037]. In patients with PSA ≤ 10 ng / ml, there was no significant difference in the detection rates of prostate cancer between the two groups [43.62% (41/94) vs. 43.08% (56/130), P = 0.936], but there was a significant difference in the detection rates of CsPCa [17.02% (16/94) vs. 28.46% (37/130), P = 0.047]. There was no significant difference in the detection rates of prostate cancer [60.24% (50/83) and 56.17% (48/87), P= 0.504] and the detection rates of CsPCa [37.35% (31/83) vs. 48.28% (42/87), P = 0.150] between the two groups. The total detection rates of the last two needles in TRUS group and MRI group were 23.16% (41/177) and 36.63% (86/217), respectively, with significant difference ( P=0.001); the detection rates of CsPCa in the last two needles were 11.86% (26/177) and 29.03% (63/ 217), respectively, with significant difference ( P < 0.001). In MRI group, the detection rates of prostate cancer in patients with PI-RADS score <3, 3, 4, 5 were 21.21% (7/33), 25.84% (23/89), 73.24% (52/71), 95.83% (23/24), respectively; the detection rates of CsPCa were 12.12% (4/33), 17.98% (16/89), 54.93% (39/71), 83.33% (23/24), respectively. Conclusions:In patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng / ml, prostate biopsy based on bpMRI may improve the detection of CsPCa, especially in patients with PSA ≤ 10 ng/ml.

Objective:To investigate the difference of prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate between transperineal cognitive fusion targeted biopsy (COG-TB) and software fusion targeted (FUS-TB).Methods:We retrospectively analyzed 157 patients accepted transperineal targeted biopsies from December 2018 to December 2019, including 67 cases of COG-TB and 90 cases of FUS-TB. All patients were prostate biopsy na?ve, with PSA levels ≤ 20 ng/ml and prostate imaging reporting and data system version 2.1 (PI-RADS v2.1) scores ≥ 3. There was no significant difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the age [(70.78 ± 8.86) vs. (70.52 ± 8.79) years old], body mass index [(24.36 ± 2.69)vs. (24.14 ± 3.15) kg/m 2], prostate volume [36.69 (27.52, 47.40) vs. 38.81 (28.80, 53.46) cm 3], PSA level [8.27 (6.0, 11.65) vs. 8.88 (6.40, 13.54) ng/ml], PSAD [0.23 (0.15, 0.36) vs. 0.21 (0.14, 0.34) ng/ml 2], suspicious digital rectal examination findings [16 (23.9%) vs. 17 (18.9%)] and PI-RADS scores [24 (35.8%), 24 (35.8%), 19 (28.4%) and 21 (23.3%) vs. 21 (23.3%), 42 (46.7%), 27 (30.0%) for PI-RADS 3, 4, and 5, respectively]. There was no significant difference in baseline characteristics between the two groups (all P<0.05). The overall and stratified detection rates of PCa and clinically significant prostate cancer (CsPCa) were compared between the two groups. The upgrading rates of Gleason score after radical prostatectomy against biopsy Gleason score were compared between the two groups. Results:There was no significant difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the detection rate of PCa [76.1% (51/67) vs. 68.9% (62/90), P=0.32]. Also, no significant difference was found in the detection rate of PCa stratified by PSA [0-10ng/ml: 69.1% (29/42) vs. 57.1% (28/49); 10-20ng/ml: 88.0% (22/25) vs. 82.9% (34/41); all P>0.05] and PI-RADS score [3: 45.8% (11/24) vs. 23.8% (5/21); 4: 91.7% (22/24) vs. 81.0% (34/42); 5: 94.7% (18/19) vs. 85.2% (23/27); all P>0.05]. Similarly, there was no dramatically difference between COG-TB and FUS-TB in the detection rate of CsPCa [58.2% (39//67) vs. 50.0% (45/90), P>0.05]. No significant difference was found in the detection of CsPCa stratified by PSA [0-10ng/ml: 45.2% (19/42) vs.36.7% (18/49); 10-20 ng/ml: 80.0% (20/25) vs. 65.9% (27/41) ; all P>0.05] and PI-RADS score [3: 29.2% (7/24) vs. 9.5% (2/21), 4: 66.7% (16/24) vs. 57.1% (24/42), 5: 84.2%(16/19) vs. 70.4% (19/27) ; all P>0.05]. Additionally, the two technique was not different significantly in the upgrading rate [28.9% (13/45) vs. 26.2% (11/42), P=0.78]. Conclusions:There is no significant difference between FUS-TB and COG-TB in the detection rate of PCa and CsPCa, along with the upgrading rate after RP in patients with PSA ≤ 20 ng / ml and PI-RADS v2.1 score≥3.

Objective:To investigate the use of bi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI)-based cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy in patients with prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS)≥3.Methods:The clinical data of 220 patients with PI-RADS ≥3 who underwent bpMRI-transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy in the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University from May 2018 to November 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. The median age was 66 (60, 73) years old, median prostate specific antigen (PSA) was 8.73 (6.52, 11.93) ng/ml, medlian prostate volume was 39.25(29.26, 58.39) ml and the mean body mass index (BMI) was (24.02±2.60) kg/m 2. For each patient, bpMRI-TRUS cognitive fusion targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy were performed by two independent experienced urologists. The primary endpoint was the detection rate of CsPCa-A [clinically significant prostate cancer-A, defined as International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade group 2 or higher tumors]. The secondary endpoints were the detection rates of CsPCa-B (defined as ISUP grade group 3 or higher tumors) and CIPCa (clinically insignificant prostate cancer, defined as ISUP grade group 1 tumors). McNemar test and Chi-square test were used to compare the positive rates of CsPCa-A, CsPCa-B and CIPCa between targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. Results:In this study, 112 patients (50.91%) were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and the detection was 42.73% (94/220) in targeted biopsy and 46.82% (103/220) in systematic biopsy.CsPCa-A was detected in 84 (38.18%) patients. Detection of CsPCa-A by targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was not different significantly [30.00% (66/220) vs.34.09% (75/220), P=0.120]. CsPCa-A would have been missed in 8.18% (18/220) patients had not performed systematic biopsy, and in 4.09% (9/220) patients had not performed targeted biopsy. CsPCa-B was detected in 26.36% (58/220) patients. Detection of CsPCa-B by targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy was not different significantly [20.00% (44/220) vs. 23.18% (51/220), P=0.190]. CsPCa-B would have been missed in 6.36% (14/220) patients had not performed systematic biopsy, and in 3.18% (7/220) patients had not performed targeted biopsy. In addition, there was no difference in the positive rates of CIPCa between targeted biopsy combined with systematic biopsy, targeted biopsy only or systematic biopsy only [all three were 12.73% (28/220), P=1.000]. Nine post-biopsy adverse events were reported, including 5 cases of infection, 2 cases of vagal reflex and 2 cases of urinary retention. All of them were improved after symptomatic treatment. Conclusions:No significant difference was identified in the detection rate of CsPCa between targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy. However, combination of targeted biopsy and systematic biopsy could further improve the detection rate of CsPCa without increasing the detection of CIPCa. Therefore, a pre-biopsy bpMRI did have significant importance in the biopsy-na?ve patients, but did not seem to skip the need for systematic biopsy.

With the spread of novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) in December 2019, the management and rehabilitation of elderly patients with hip fractures and protection of medical staff face new challenges, and need to be adjusted appropriately under this very circumstances. Hip fractures in the elderly account for more than half of osteoporotic fractures. Expert group formulate this consensus so as to make better decision against this epidemic and protect patients' families and medical staff. This consensus elaborates not only epidemic condition of NCP, but also general principles of medical admission, treatment and protection for both medical staff and patients, in order to provide some reference and promote the standardization of clinical diagnosis and treatment of elderly patients with hip fractures under the condition of NCP.

Since December 2019, novel coronavirus pneumonia (NCP) has been reported in Wuhan, Hubei Province, and spreads rapidly to all through Hubei Province and even to the whole country. The virus is 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), never been seen previously in human, but all the population is generally susceptible. The virus spreads through many ways and is highly infectious, which brings great difficulties to the prevention and control of NCP. Based on the needs of orthopedic trauma patients for emergency surgery and review of the latest NCP diagnosis and treatment strategy and the latest principles and principles of evidence-based medicine in traumatic orthopedics, the authors put forward this expert consensus to systematically standardize the clinical pathway and protective measures of emergency surgery for orthopedic trauma patients during prevention and control of NCP and provide reference for the emergency surgical treatment of orthopedic trauma patients in hospitals at all levels.