Revision total knee arthroplasty for failed high tibial osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty have similar patient-reported outcome measures in a two-year follow-up study.

AIMS: Little is known about the relative outcomes of revision of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this study is to compare the outcomes of revision surgery for the two procedures in terms of complications, re-revision and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a minimum of two years follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of data from an institutional arthroplasty registry for cases performed between 2001 and 2014. A total of 292 patients were identified, of which 217 had a revision of HTO to TKA, and 75 had revision of UKA to TKA. While mean follow-up was longer for the HTO group compared with the UKA group, patient demographics (age, body mass index and Charlson co-morbidity index) and PROMs (Short Form-36, Oxford Knee Score, Knee Society Score, both objective and functional) were similar in the two groups prior to revision surgery. Outcomes included the rate of complications and re-operation, PROMS and patient-reported satisfaction at six months and two years post-operatively. We also compared the duration of surgery and the need for revision implants in the two groups. RESULTS: At two-year follow-up, both groups of patients had made significant improvement in terms of PROMs compared with pre-operative scores. PROMs and satisfaction rates were similar in the two groups. Complications requiring re-operation were significantly more frequent in the HTO group whilst more revision implants were used in the UKA group, resulting in a longer operative duration. CONCLUSION: Revision of HTO and UKA achieve similar post-operative PROMs and satisfaction. Revision of UKA more frequently requires revision components with increased operation duration but fewer complications requiring re-operation compared with revision of HTO. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1329-34.

Does mpMRI improve clinical criteria in selecting men with prostate cancer for active surveillance?

BACKGROUND: Active surveillance (AS) has excellent short to medium term outcomes in well-selected prostate cancer patients. Traditional biopsy-based selection criteria have been criticized for inaccurate determination of cancer grade and extent. We evaluated the incremental benefit of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) in patient selection using various AS criteria. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated men who received mpMRI before radical prostatectomy between 2011 and 2014. Patients were classified as suitable for AS using four criteria: (1) Epstein, (2) National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) low-risk or (3) extended criteria (Gleason ⩽3+4, PSA ⩽15 ng/ml, clinical stage ⩽T2b) using clinical parameters. The incremental value of mpMRI was evaluated against the referent standard of surgical pathology in determining suitability for AS using sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios (LRs) and area under receiver operating curves (AUCs). RESULTS: We evaluated 208 men. Only one man fulfilled Epstein criteria (1) at pathology, who was neither identified using clinical criteria nor mpMRI. Using (2), clinical criteria had a sensitivity of 80%, specificity 75%, LR+ 3.3, LR- 0.3, AUC 0.78, while combined clinical-mpMRI criteria achieved a sensitivity of 80%, specificity 99.5% (P<0.01), LR+ 162, LR- 0.2 and AUC 0.90 (P<0.01 compared to clinical). Using (3), clinical criteria had a sensitivity of 74%, specificity 47%, LR+ 1.4, LR- 0.6, AUC 0.60, while combined clinical-mpMRI criteria achieved a sensitivity of 26% (P<0.01), specificity 97% (P<0.01), LR+ 8.3, LR- 0.8 and AUC 0.62 (P=0.85). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of mpMRI significantly improved selection of men for AS using NCCN low-risk criteria. For selecting men with limited prognostic grade group 2, mpMRI significantly improved specificity at the expense of sensitivity.

Patient selection for prostate focal therapy in the era of active surveillance: an International Delphi Consensus Project.

BACKGROUND: Whole-gland extirpation or irradiation is considered the gold standard for curative oncological treatment for localized prostate cancer, but is often associated with sexual and urinary impairment that adversely affects quality of life. This has led to increased interest in developing therapies with effective cancer control but less morbidity. We aimed to provide details of physician consensus on patient selection for prostate focal therapy (FT) in the era of contemporary prostate cancer management. METHODS: We undertook a four-stage Delphi consensus project among a panel of 47 international experts in prostate FT. Data on three main domains (role of biopsy/imaging, disease and patient factors) were collected in three iterative rounds of online questionnaires and feedback. Consensus was defined as agreement in ⩾80% of physicians. Finally, an in-person meeting was attended by a core group of 16 experts to review the data and formulate the consensus statement. RESULTS: Consensus was obtained in 16 of 18 subdomains. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) is a standard imaging tool for patient selection for FT. In the presence of an mpMRI-suspicious lesion, histological confirmation is necessary prior to FT. In addition, systematic biopsy remains necessary to assess mpMRI-negative areas. However, adequate criteria for systematic biopsy remains indeterminate. FT can be recommended in D'Amico low-/intermediate-risk cancer including Gleason 4+3. Gleason 3+4 cancer, where localized, discrete and of favorable size represents the ideal case for FT. Tumor foci <1.5 ml on mpMRI or <20% of the prostate are suitable for FT, or up to 3 ml or 25% if localized to one hemi-gland. Gleason 3+3 at one core 1mm is acceptable in the untreated area. Preservation of sexual function is an important goal, but lack of erectile function should not exclude a patient from FT. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus provides a contemporary insight into expert opinion of patient selection for FT of clinically localized prostate cancer.

Utilization of multiparametric prostate magnetic resonance imaging in clinical practice and focal therapy: report from a Delphi consensus project.

PURPOSE: To codify the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for the interrogation of prostate neoplasia (PCa) in clinical practice and focal therapy (FT). METHODS: An international collaborative consensus project was undertaken using the Delphi method among experts in the field of PCa. An online questionnaire was presented in three consecutive rounds and modified each round based on the comments provided by the experts. Subsequently, a face-to-face meeting was held to discuss and finalize the consensus results. RESULTS: mpMRI should be performed in patients with prior negative biopsies if clinical suspicion remains, but not instead of the PSA test, nor as a stand-alone diagnostic tool or mpMRI-targeted biopsies only. It is not recommended to use a 1.5 Tesla MRI scanner without an endorectal or pelvic phased-array coil. mpMRI should be performed following standard biopsy-based PCa diagnosis in both the planning and follow-up of FT. If a lesion is seen, MRI-TRUS fusion biopsies should be performed for FT planning. Systematic biopsies are still required for FT planning in biopsy-naïve patients and for patients with residual PCa after FT. Standard repeat biopsies should be taken during the follow-up of FT. The final decision to perform FT should be based on histopathology. However, these consensus statements may differ for expert centers versus non-expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: The mpMRI is an important tool for characterizing and targeting PCa in clinical practice and FT. Standardization of acquisition and reading should be the main priority to guarantee consistent mpMRI quality throughout the urological community.

Focal Cryotherapy for Localized Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the oncological and functional outcomes of contemporary primary prostate focal cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer in the context of current developments in prostate focal therapy. METHODS: We performed a systematic search of the Pubmed, Cochrane and Embase databases to identify studies where primary prostate focal cryotherapy was performed to treat prostate cancer. These included reports on focal/ lesion/ sector ablation, hemi-ablation and partial prostate ablation. We excluded salvage focal therapy studies. Where multiple reports were published over time from a single cohort, the latest one was used. RESULTS: Our search yielded 290 publications, including 17 primary reports on eight single-center cohort studies and one multi-center registry report. Of 1,595 men identified, mean age was 60.5-69.5 years and mean PSA 5.1-7.8 ng/ml. When stratified by D'Amico risk criteria, 52% of the aggregate total number of men were low-risk, 38% intermediate-risk and 10% high-risk. Besides 12-core TRUS biopsy, 3 cohorts reported using TTMB and one included mpMRI to select men for focal treatment. Median follow-up ranged from 13-63 months. BPFS ranged from 71-98%. The overall post-treatment positive biopsy rate was 8-25%. Among 5 cohorts with a mandatory 6-12 month posttreatment biopsy, 216 of 272 men (79%) did undergo biopsy, with 47 positive (21.8%). Of these, 15 were infield, 26 outfield, 2 bilateral and 4 undeclared. Ten upgraded to Gleason≥7. Overall, two men had metastatic disease and none died of prostate cancer. Post-treatment continence rates were 96-100% and rates of erectile dysfunction ranged from 0-42%. The rate of post-treatment urinary retention ranged from 0-15%. The rate of recto-urethral fistula was 0-0.1%. CONCLUSION: Focal cryotherapy for localized prostate cancer is a safe and provides good preservation of sexual and urinary function. Accurate cancer localization and risk stratification is key to patient selection. In highly selected patients, focal therapy has good short to medium term oncological efficacy.

Standardization of definitions in focal therapy of prostate cancer: report from a Delphi consensus project.

PURPOSE: To reach standardized terminology in focal therapy (FT) for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS: A four-stage modified Delphi consensus project was undertaken among a panel of international experts in the field of FT for PCa. Data on terminology in FT was collected from the panel by three rounds of online questionnaires. During a face-to-face meeting on June 21, 2015, attended by 38 experts, all data from the online rounds were reviewed and recommendations for definitions were formulated. RESULTS: Consensus was attained on 23 of 27 topics; Targeted FT was defined as a lesion-based treatment strategy, treating all identified significant cancer foci; FT was generically defined as an anatomy-based (zonal) treatment strategy. Treatment failure due to the ablative energy inadequately destroying treated tissue is defined as ablation failure. In targeting failure the energy is not adequately applied to the tumor spatially and selection failure occurs when a patient was wrongfully selected for FT. No definition of biochemical recurrence can be recommended based on the current data. Important definitions for outcome measures are potency (minimum IIEF-5 score of 21), incontinence (new need for pads or leakage) and deterioration in urinary function (increase in IPSS >5 points). No agreement on the best quality of life tool was established, but UCLA-EPIC and EORTC-QLQ-30 were most commonly supported by the experts. A complete overview of statements is presented in the text. CONCLUSION: Focal therapy is an emerging field of PCa therapeutics. Standardization of definitions helps to create comparable research results and facilitate clear communication in clinical practice.

Effects of food-simulating liquids on surface properties of giomer restoratives.

This study examined the effects of food-simulating liquid (FSL) on the hardness and roughness of giomer restoratives based on pre-reacted glass ionomer (PRG) technology. The materials investigated included a regular (Beautifil II [BT]) and a recently introduced injectable (Beautifil Flow Plus F00 [BF]) hybrid PRG composite. A direct hybrid composite (Filtek Z250 [ZT]) and an indirect hybrid composite (Ceramage [CM]) were used for comparison. The materials were placed into customized square molds (5 mm × 5 mm × 2.5 mm), covered with Mylar strips, and cured according to manufacturers' instructions. The materials were then conditioned in air (control), distilled water, 50% ethanol solution, and 0.02 N citric acid at 37°C for seven days. Specimens (n=6) were then subjected to hardness testing (Knoop) and surface profilometry. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Scheffe test (p<0.05). Mean Knoop hardness values for the control group (air) ranged from 53.4 ± 3.4 (BF) to 89.5 ± 5.2 (ZT), while mean surface roughness values values ranged from 0.014 ± 0.002 (ZT) to 0.032 ± 0.001 (BT). All materials were significantly softened by FSL. The degree of softening by the different FSLs was material dependent. The hardness of giomers was most affected by citric acid and ethanol. The smoothest surface was generally observed with the control group. Giomer restoratives were significantly roughened by citric acid.