3171/2011.7.PEDS1179)”
“Background: Intertrochanteric hip fractures

are a major source of morbidity and financial burden, accounting for 7% of osteoporotic fractures and costing nearly $6 billion annually in the United States. Traditionally, “stable” fracture patterns have been treated with an extramedullary sliding hip screw whereas “unstable” patterns have been treated with the more expensive intramedullary nail. The purpose of this study was to identify parameters to guide cost-effective implant choices with use of decision-analysis techniques to model these common clinical scenarios. Methods: An expected-value Selleckchem BTSA1 decision-analysis model was constructed to estimate the total costs and health utility based on the choice of a sliding hip Bromosporine ic50 screw or an intramedullary nail for fixation of an intertrochanteric hip fracture. Values for critical parameters, such as fixation failure rate, were derived from the literature. Three scenarios were evaluated: (1) a clearly stable fracture (AO type 31-A1), (2) a clearly unstable fracture (A3), or (3) a fracture with questionable stability (A2). Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the validity of the model. Results: The fixation failure rate and implant cost were the most important factors in determining implant choice. When the incremental cost for

the intramedullary nail was set at the median value ($1200), intramedullary nailing had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year when the incremental failure rate of sliding hip screws was 1.9%. When the incremental failure rate of sliding hip screws was bigger than 5.0%, intramedullary nails dominated with lower cost and better health outcomes. The sliding hip screw was always more cost-effective for A1 fractures, and the intramedullary nail always dominated for A3 fractures. As for A2 fractures, the sliding hip screw was cost-effective in 70% of the cases, although this was highly sensitive to the failure rate. Conclusions: Sliding hip screw fixation is likely more cost-effective for stable intertrochanteric fractures (A1) or those with questionable

stability (A2), whereas intramedullary nail fixation is more cost-effective for reverse obliquity fractures (A3). These conclusions are highly sensitive to the fixation failure rate, which was the major influence on the model results.”
“Purpose: To assess the clinical utility Quisinostat chemical structure of the prostate-specific antigen mass ratio (PSA-MR), a newly developed PSA derivative, simply defined as the (i) PSA density (PSA-D) multiplied by the plasma volume or (ii) total PSA amount in circulation per prostate volume, for predicting prostate cancer (PCa) among men undergoing repeated prostate biopsy (PBx). Materials and Methods: Patients (n = 286), who underwent a repeated PBx, were analyzed. The various parameters associated with PCa detection were noted in each patient. PSA-MR was also calculated. Results: PCa was detected in 63 (22.0%) of 286 patients.