No abstract

No abstract

In these uncertain times of high health care costs, clinicians are looking for cost-effective devices to employ in their everyday practices. In an effort to promote cost-effective and proper wound repair, the hydrosurgical device allows accurate debridement of only unwanted tissue while precisely conserving viable structures for eventual repair. This prospective, randomised study compared procedures using the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET™) with conventional debridement in order to assess clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness when treating subjects with chronic wounds. A total of 40 subjects were recruited. There was no difference in time to achieve stable wound closure between the treatment groups (P = 0·77). There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of cost of the first operative procedure (P = 0·28), cost of surgical procedures during the study (P = 0·51), cost of study treatment (P = 0·29) or cost to achieve stable wound closure (P = 0·85). There were no differences in quantitative bacterial counts after debridement with either methods (P = 0·376). However, the time taken for the first excision procedure was significantly faster using the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET) when compared with conventional debridement (P < 0·001). The total excision time for all procedures was significantly less for the Hydrosurgery group than for the conventional group (P = 0·005). Also, the Hydrosurgery group demonstrated significantly less intraoperative blood loss than conventional group for all procedures (P = 0·003). In this study, although there were no differences in time to stable wound closure or bacterial reduction between the two groups, the hydrosurgery system (VERSAJET) did offer advantages in terms of operative times and intraoperative blood loss and was cost-neutral, despite the handpiece cost.

No abstract

To evaluate the performance of the Prostate Health Index (PHI) in magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion prostate biopsy for the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa). We prospectively enrolled 164 patients with at least one Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2 (PI-RADS v2) ≥ 3 lesions who underwent MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsy. Of the PSA-derived biomarkers, the PHI had the best performance in predicting csPCa (AUC 0.792, CI 0.707–0.877) in patients with PI-RADS 4/5 lesions. Furthermore, the predictive power of PHI was even higher in the patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions (AUC 0.884, CI 0.792–0.976). To minimize missing csPCa, we used a PHI cutoff of 27 and 7.4% of patients with PI-RADS 4/5 lesions could have avoided a biopsy. At this level, 2.0% of cases with csPCa would have been missed, with sensitivity and NPV rates of 98.0% and 87.5%, respectively. However, the subgroup of PI-RADS 3 was too small to define the optimal PHI cutoff. PHI was the best PSA-derived biomarker to predict csPCa in MRI-TRUS fusion prostate biopsies in men with PI-RADS ≥ 3 lesions, especially for the patients with PI-RADS 3 lesions who gained the most value.