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: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Purpose: Renal tumors account for approximately 7% of all childhood cancers. These include Wilms tumor (WT), clear cell sarcoma of the kidney (CCSK), malignant rhabdoid tumor of the kidney (MRTK), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), congenital mesoblastic nephroma (CMN) and other rare tumors. We investigated the epidemiology of pediatric renal tumors in Korea. Materials and Methods: From January 2001 to December 2015, data of pediatric patients (0–18 years) newly-diagnosed with renal tumors at 26 hospitals were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Among 439 patients (male, 240), the most common tumor was WT (n=342, 77.9%), followed by RCC (n=36, 8.2%), CCSK (n=24, 5.5%), MRTK (n=16, 3.6%), CMN (n=12, 2.7%), and others (n=9, 2.1%). Median age at diagnosis was 27.1 months (range 0-225.5) and median follow-up duration was 88.5 months (range 0-211.6). Overall, 32 patients died, of whom 17, 11, 1, and 3 died of relapse, progressive disease, second malignant neoplasm, and treatment-related mortality. Five-year overall survival and event free survival were 97.2% and 84.8% in WT, 90.6% and 82.1% in RCC, 81.1% and 63.6% in CCSK, 60.3% and 56.2% in MRTK, and 100% and 91.7% in CMN, respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion The pediatric renal tumor types in Korea are similar to those previously reported in other countries. WT accounted for a large proportion and survival was excellent. Non-Wilms renal tumors included a variety of tumors and showed inferior outcome, especially MRTK. Further efforts are necessary to optimize the treatment and analyze the genetic characteristics of pediatric renal tumors in Korea.

Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of patients given an enhanced monofocal intraocular lens (IOL) (Isopure; PhysIOL, Liege, Belgium), and monofocal, and trifocal IOLs. Methods: Patients who underwent cataract surgery with bilateral implantation of monofocal Vivinex IOLs, enhanced monofocal Isopure IOLs, and trifocal Panoptix IOLs were included. Three months postoperatively, the uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), intermediate visual acuity (UIVA), and near visual acuity (UNVA), as well as the spherical equivalent (SE) were determined. Photic symptoms were explored via a questionnaire. Results: The postoperative SE and UDVA did not differ significantly among the three groups (p = 0.100 and 0.204 respectively). The mean UIVAs (logMAR) were 0.61 ± 0.14, 0.3 ± 0.1, and 0.14 ± 0.11 in the Vivinex, Isopure, and Panoptix groups respectively. The Isopure group exhibited a significantly better UIVA than the Vivinex group (p < 0.001) and the Panoptix group exhibited a significantly better UIVA than either the Vivinex or Isopure group (p = 0.002 and < 0.001 respectively). The mean UNVAs (logMAR) were 0.68 ± 0.16, 0.57 ± 0.19, and 0.17 ± 0.12 for the Vivinex, Isopure, and Panoptix groups respectively. There was no significant UNVA difference between the Vivinex and Isopure groups (p = 0.185) but the UNVA of the Panoptix group was significantly better than the UNVAs of the Vivinex and Isopure groups (both p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in photic symptoms between the Vivinex and Isopure groups (p = 0.980); however, the Panoptix group evidenced significantly more severe symptoms than did the other two groups (p = 0.021 and 0.042 respectively). Conclusions Enhanced monofocal Isopure IOL showed superior intermediate vision compared to Vivinex monofocal IOL, and inferior intermediate and near visual acuity compared Panoptix trifocal IOL, but with fewer photic symptoms.

The final analysis of the phase 3 Targeted Investigational Treatment Analysis of Novel Anti-androgen (TITAN) trial showed improvement in overall survival (OS) and other efficacy endpoints with apalutamide plus androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus ADT alone in patients with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). As ethnicity and regional differences may affect treatment outcomes in advanced prostate cancer, a post hoc final analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of apalutamide in the Asian subpopulation. Event-driven endpoints were OS, and time from randomization to initiation of castration resistance, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, and second progression-free survival (PFS2) on first subsequent therapy or death. Efficacy endpoints were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards models without formal statistical testing and adjustment for multiplicity. Participating Asian patients received once-daily apalutamide 240 mg ( n = 111) or placebo ( n = 110) plus ADT. After a median follow-up of 42.5 months and despite crossover of 47 placebo recipients to open-label apalutamide, apalutamide reduced the risk of death by 32% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-1.13), risk of castration resistance by 69% (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.21-0.46), PSA progression by 79% (HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.13-0.35) and PFS2 by 24% (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.44-1.29) relative to placebo. The outcomes were comparable between subgroups with low- and high-volume disease at baseline. No new safety issues were identified. Apalutamide provides valuable clinical benefits to Asian patients with mCSPC, with an efficacy and safety profile consistent with that in the overall patient population.
Male ; Humans ; Prostatic Neoplasms/pathology* ; Androgen Antagonists/therapeutic use* ; Prostate-Specific Antigen ; Castration ; Prostatic Neoplasms, Castration-Resistant/drug therapy*

Background: Swallowing of foreign bodies (FBs) is the most common indication of therapeutic endoscopy in children. Endoscopic removal may be necessary depending on the type of FB, age of the child, and location of the FB. We attempted to analyze the characteristics of each device used for the endoscopic removal of FBs in children. Methods: Medical records of the patient’s age, sex, weight, type, location, size, shape, type of device used for endoscopic removal, and endoscopic time were retrospectively collected. Results: A total of 424 FB removal procedures were analyzed. The average age of the patients at the time of FB removal was 4.1 ± 3.7 years. Coins were the most common FBs (192, 45.3%). The most common locations of the FBs were the esophagus (45.7%) and the stomach (48.3%), respectively. For a total of 371 cases, forceps were used in 96 cases (25.9%) for esophageal FBs and in 25 cases for gastric FBs (6.7%), while nets were used in 250 cases (67.4%) for gastric FBs retrieval; the average durations of the procedures were 7.2 ± 7.4 minutes, 8.5 ± 7.2 minutes, and 5.7 ± 7.3 minutes, respectively (P = 0.003). The procedure time was significantly shorter, in the group of patients with low body weights, when nets were used than when forceps were used to remove gastric FBs (P = 0.001). Conclusion The endoscopic procedure duration, in low-weight children, was shorter when retrieval nets were used than that with forceps.

Background: & Objectives: Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) offer advantages in adherence and cost-effectiveness compared to free combinations (FCs), but they can also complicate the prescribing process, potentially leading to therapeutic duplication (TD). This study aimed to identify the prescribing patterns of FDCs for dyslipidemia and investigate their associated risk of TD. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study involving drugs that included statins, using Health Insurance Review & Assessment ServiceNational Patient Sample (HIRA-NPS) data from 2018. The unit of analysis was a prescription claim. The primary outcome was TD.The risk ratio of TD was calculated and adjusted for patient, prescriber, and the number of cardiovascular drugs prescribed using a multivariable Poisson model. Results: Our study included 252,797 FDC prescriptions and 515,666 FC prescriptions. Of the FDC group, 46.52% were male patients and 56.21% were aged 41 to 65. Ezetimibe was included in 71.61% of the FDC group, but only 0.25% of the FC group. TD occurred in 0.18% of the FDC group, and the adjusted risk ratio of TD in FDC prescriptions compared to FC was 6. 44 (95% CI 5. 30-7. 82). Conclusions Prescribing FDCs for dyslipidemia was associated with a higher risk of TD compared to free combinations. Despite the relatively low absolute prevalence of TD, the findings underline the necessity for strategies to mitigate this risk when prescribing FDCs for dyslipidemia. Our study suggests the potential utility of Clinical Decision Support Systems and standardizing nomenclature in reducing medication errors, providing valuable insights for clinical practice and future research.