No abstract

PurposeTo systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer.Materials and MethodsElectronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies.ResultsA total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up.ConclusionRARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.

Background: Chronic inflammation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of several cancers, including lung and laryngeal cancer. The objective of the study is to elucidate the association between ICS use and diagnosis of lung and laryngeal cancer. Methods: A nested caseecontrol study based on the Korean national claims database included new adult users of inhaled medications between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2010. Patients diagnosed with lung cancer or laryngeal cancer after enrollment were identified as cases and up to five control individuals matched for age, sex, diagnosis of asthma or COPD, Charlson Comorbidity Index scores, number of health care visits, and initiation date were selected. Results: From the 792,687 eligible cohort, 9177 individuals diagnosed with lung cancer were matched with 37,048 controls. Additionally, 408 laryngeal cancer patients and 1651 controls were matched. ICS use was associated with a decreased rate of lung cancer diagnosis [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69e0.90]. The inverse association between ICS use and lung cancer risk was dose dependent (P < 0.0001 for the trend). However, no reduction in the risk of laryngeal cancer among ICS users was identified (aOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.62e1.18). Conclusion: The use of ICS is associated with a reduced risk of lung cancer but not of laryngeal cancer.

BackgroundTo compare the effects of endovascular coiling and neurosurgical clipping in patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysm.MethodsSixteen electronic databases were searched for articles published between 1950 and July 2010 to compare clinical outcomes of clipping and coiling. Researchers reviewed all searched articles and extracted data independently. The quality of studies and evidence were evaluated using MINORS and GRADEprofiler, respectively. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using the inverse variance meta-analysis method for each study outcome. To assess heterogeneity of ORs across cohorts, Cochran’s Q statistic and I2 were used.ResultsOf 4160 studies, 24 were identified (n  =  31865). Clipping resulted in significantly higher disability using the Glasgow Outcome Scale (OR, 2.38; 95% CI, 1.33–4.26) and Modified Rankin Scale (OR, 2.83; 95% CI, 1.42–5.63) when compared with coiling. ORs for complications were also higher with clipping (ORs for neurological and cardiac complications were 1.94 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 1.09–3.47 and 2.51 with a 95% CI of 1.15–5.50). Clipping resulted in significantly greater disability in the short term (≤6 m)(OR on the Glasgow Outcome Scale, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.16–6.34), but not in the long term (>6 m)(OR for Glasgow Outcome Scale, 2.12; 95% CI, 0.93–4.84).ConclusionsCoiling was a better procedure for treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysm in terms of disability, complications, especially in the short term. Because of the limitations of the reviewed studies, further studies are required to support the present results.

Instability following total knee arthroplasty is one of the major causes of revision surgery. In most cases, it can be prevented by using an appropriate prosthesis and a good surgical technique. Particular attention should be given to confirmation of diagnosis for which thorough history taking, complete physical examination and radiographic evaluation are needed. With regard to treatment, identification of the etiology of instability is crucial for establishing proper treatment plans; instability would persist without correction of the cause of the initial instability. For successful revision surgery, balanced medio-lateral and flexion-extension gaps should be achieved. Constrained or rotating-hinge total knee prosthesis should also be considered as an alternative option for certain subsets of patients with instability.