A new universal, standardized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries.

INTRODUCTION Every joint registry aims to improve patient care by identifying implants that have an inferior performance. For this reason, each registry records the implant name that has been used in the individual patient. In most registries, a paper-based approach has been utilized for this purpose. However, in addition to being time-consuming, this approach does not account for the fact that failure patterns are not necessarily implant specific but can be associated with design features that are used in a number of implants. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an implant product library that allows both time saving barcode scanning on site in the hospital for the registration of the implant components and a detailed description of implant specifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS A task force consisting of representatives of the German Arthroplasty Registry, industry, and computer specialists agreed on a solution that allows barcode scanning of implant components and that also uses a detailed standardized classification describing arthroplasty components. The manufacturers classified all their components that are sold in Germany according to this classification. The implant database was analyzed regarding the completeness of components by algorithms and real-time data. RESULTS The implant library could be set up successfully. At this point, the implant database includes more than 38,000 items, of which all were classified by the manufacturers according to the predefined scheme. Using patient data from the German Arthroplasty Registry, several errors in the database were detected, all of which were corrected by the respective implant manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS The implant library that was developed for the German Arthroplasty Registry allows not only on-site barcode scanning for the registration of the implant components but also its classification tree allows a sophisticated analysis regarding implant characteristics, regardless of brand or manufacturer. The database is maintained by the implant manufacturers, thereby allowing registries to focus their resources on other areas of research. The database might represent a possible global model, which might encourage harmonization between joint replacement registries enabling comparisons between joint replacement registries.

Estimating the benefit of a second bone anchored hearing implant in unilaterally implanted users with a testband.

Conclusion Using a second bone anchored hearing implant (BAHI) mounted on a testband in unilaterally implanted BAHI users to test its potential advantage pre-operatively under-estimates the advantage of two BAHIs placed on two implants. Objectives To investigate how well speech understanding with a second BAHI mounted on a testband approaches the benefit of bilaterally implanted BAHIs. Method Prospective study with 16 BAHI users. Eight were implanted unilaterally (group A) and eight were implanted bilaterally (group B). Aided speech understanding was measured. Speech was presented from the front and noise came either from the left, right, or from the front in two conditions for group A (with one BAHI, and with two BAHIs, where the second device was mounted on a testband) and in three conditions for group B (same two conditions as group A, and in addition with both BAHIs mounted on implants). Results Speech understanding in noise improved with the additional device for noise from the side of the first BAHI (+0.7 to +2.1 dB) and decreased for noise from the other side (-1.8 dB to -3.9 dB). Improvements were highest (+2.1 dB, p = 0.016) and disadvantages were smallest (-1.8 dB, p = 0.047) with both BAHIs mounted on implants. Testbands yielded smaller advantages and higher disadvantages of the additional BAHI (average difference = -0.9 dB).

Compensatory saccades benefit from prediction during head impulse testing in early recovery from vestibular deafferentation

The head impulse test (HIT) can identify a deficient vestibulo-ocular reflex (VOR) by the compensatory saccade (CS) generated once the head stops moving. The inward HIT is considered safer than the outward HIT, yet might have an oculomotor advantage given that the subject would presumably know the direction of head rotation. Here, we compare CS latencies following inward (presumed predictable) and outward (more unpredictable) HITs after acute unilateral vestibular nerve deafferentation. Seven patients received inward and outward HITs delivered at six consecutive postoperative days (POD) and again at POD 30. All head impulses were recorded by portable video-oculography. CS included those occurring during (covert) or after (overt) head rotation. Inward HITs included mean CS latencies (183.48 ms ± 4.47 SE) that were consistently shorter than those generated during outward HITs in the first 6 POD (p = 0.0033). Inward HITs induced more covert saccades compared to outward HITs, acutely. However, by POD 30 there were no longer any differences in latencies or proportions of CS and direction of head rotation. Patients with acute unilateral vestibular loss likely use predictive cues of head direction to elicit early CS to keep the image centered on the fovea. In acute vestibular hypofunction, inwardly applied HITs may risk a preponderance of covert saccades, yet this difference largely disappears within 30 days. Advantages of inwardly applied HITs are discussed and must be balanced against the risk of a false-negative HIT interpretation.

Older patients with low Charlson score and high-risk prostate cancer benefit from radical prostatectomy

INTRODUCTION The aim of the study was to identify the appropriate level of Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) in older patients (>70 years) with high-risk prostate cancer (PCa) to achieve survival benefit following radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 1008 older patients (>70 years) who underwent RP with pelvic lymph node dissection for high-risk prostate cancer (preoperative prostate-specific antigen >20 ng/mL or clinical stage ≥T2c or Gleason ≥8) from 14 tertiary institutions between 1988 and 2014. The study population was further grouped into CCI < 2 and ≥2 for analysis. Survival rate for each group was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method and competitive risk Fine-Gray regression to estimate the best explanatory multivariable model. Area under the curve (AUC) and Akaike information criterion were used to identify ideal 'Cut off' for CCI. RESULTS The clinical and cancer characteristics were similar between the two groups. Comparison of the survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier curve between two groups for non-cancer death and survival estimations for 5 and 10 years shows significant worst outcomes for patients with CCI ≥ 2. In multivariate model to decide the appropriate CCI cut-off point, we found CCI 2 has better AUC and p value in log rank test. CONCLUSION Older patients with fewer comorbidities harboring high-risk PCa appears to benefit from RP. Sicker patients are more likely to die due to non-prostate cancer-related causes and are less likely to benefit from RP.