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: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

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: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

Background: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.

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: This study aimed to compare the intraoperative stability and early clinical outcomes of 40-mm diameter dual mobility (DM)-total hip arthroplasty (THA) with 36-mm ceramic head (large head) THA in active elderly patients with hip fractures. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted from May 2022 to December 2022. Inclusion criteria were as follows: age ≥ 60 years, displaced femoral neck fracture, Koval grade 1 or 2, planned 54-mm acetabular component, and over 1-year follow-up. Intraoperative stability tests were performed on all patients (internal rotation at 45°, 60°, and 90° of hip fracture). Functional outcomes (Harris Hip Score and University of California, Los Angeles [UCLA] Score) were evaluated at 6 weeks and 3 months postoperatively. Gait analysis using artificial intelligence (AI) techniques was conducted at 3 months postoperatively. Results: The study included 36 DM-THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 2.2 years; 44% women) and 37 large head THA patients (mean age, 69.6 ± 1.2 years; 64% women). No statistically significant differences were observed in functional outcomes and hip range of motion between the 2 groups. However, there was a significant difference in the gait speed and stance-swing phase of the large head THA group and the DM-THA group: the DM-THA group demonstrated superior gait speed (2.85 ± 0.83 kph vs. 2.04 ± 1.04 kph, p = 0.003) and higher stance phase ratios (operated side: 63.57% ± 3.82% vs. 48.19% ± 5.50%, p < 0.001; opposite side: 62.77% ± 2.27% vs. 49.93% ± 6.94%, p < 0.001). In the stability test at 90° of hip flexion, the DM-THA group had a measurement of 48.40° ± 5.17°, while the large head THA group had a measurement of 30.94° ± 2.98° (p = 0.012). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the intraoperative stability test showed the dislocation angle was notably different between the groups in the hip flexion position of 60° (51.60° ± 6.09° in the DM-THA group and 40.00° ± 2.80° in the large head THA group, p = 0.072). Conclusions Superior results were observed in the intraoperative stability test and early recovery of gait after DM-THA compared to large head THA. We believe that DM-THA can be a useful surgical option for THA in elderly patients with hip fractures.