ABSTRACT
Objective: A hybrid approach is being employed increasingly in the management of peripheral arterial disease. This study aimed to assess the surgical site infection (SSI) incidence of hybrid revascularisation (HR) compared with common femoral endarterectomy (CFEA) alone. Methods: This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients who underwent CFEA or HR alongside CFEA between 2017 and 2021 including one year of follow up. The primary outcome was SSI incidence. Secondary outcomes included length of surgery, duration of admission, further revascularisation surgery, limb salvage, and death. Differences in outcomes were assessed with the Student's unpaired t test, chi square test, and Fisher's exact test. Results: A total of 157 groin incisions from 155 patients were included: 78 had CFEA procedures and 79 had HR procedures. No statistical difference was found between groups for age, sex, and indication for surgery. Surgical site infection occurred in five of the CFEA patients (6%) compared with seven of the HR patients (9%) (p = 0.77). The HR procedures took significantly longer, with an average of 299 minutes compared with 220 minutes for CFEA (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was identified for length of admission: median stay five days for CFEA vs. four days for HR (p = 0.44). Major amputation was performed within one year in five of the CFEA procedures (6%) and five of the HR procedures (6%) (p = 1.0). Further revascularisation surgery was attempted in two patients in the HR group and six patients in the CFEA group (p =. 17). No statistically significant difference was found in the one year mortality rate: eight CFEA (10%) and seven HR (9%) (p = 0.77). Conclusion: Patients who underwent HR alongside CFEA did not have a statistically significantly increased incidence of SSI, despite increased surgical time. Using HR techniques enabled patients to have multilevel disease treated in one stage without an increased incidence of SSI.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for significant prostate cancer with transperineal sector biopsy (TPSB) as the reference standard. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included consecutive patients who presented for TPSB between July 2012 and November 2013 after mpMRI (T2- and diffusion-weighted images, 1.5 Tesla scanner, 8-channel body coil). A specialist uro-radiologist, blinded to clinical details, assigned qualitative prostate imaging reporting and data system (PI-RADS) scores on a Likert-type scale, denoting the likelihood of significant prostate cancer as follows: 1, highly unlikely; 3, equivocal; and 5, highly likely. TPSBs sampled 24-40 cores (depending on prostate size) per patient. Significant prostate cancer was defined as the presence of Gleason pattern 4 or cancer core length ≥6 mm. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included in the analysis. Indications were: a previous negative transrectal biopsy with continued suspicion of prostate cancer (n = 103); primary biopsy (n = 83); and active surveillance (n = 15). Patients' mean (±sd) age, prostate-specific antigen and prostate volumes were 65 (±7) years, 12.8 (±12.4) ng/mL and 62 (±36) mL, respectively. Overall, biopsies were benign, clinically insignificant and clinically significant in 124 (62%), 20 (10%) and 57 (28%) patients, respectively. Two of 88 men with a PI-RADS score of 1 or 2 had significant prostate cancer, giving a sensitivity of 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 87-99) and a specificity of 60% (95% CI 51-68) at this threshold. Receiver-operator curve analysis gave an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% CI 0.82-0.92). The negative predictive value of a PI-RADS score of ≤2 for clinically significant prostate cancer was 97.7% CONCLUSION: We found that PI-RADS scoring performs well as a predictor for biopsy outcome and could be used in the decision-making process for prostate biopsy.
