Three-Dimensional Printed Knee Implants: Insights into Surgeons' Points of View.

Three-dimensional printing is a technology that has been developed and applied in several medical specialties, especially orthopedic surgery. Knee arthroplasty is the most commonly performed procedure. To fit the morphology of each knee, surgeons can choose between different standardized off-the-shelf implant sizes or opt for customized 3D-printed implants. However, routine adoption of the latter has been slow and faces several barriers. Existing studies focus on technical improvements or case studies and do not directly address the surgeon's perspective. Our study invited surgeons to express themselves freely and answer the question "What do you think about the manufacture of a prosthesis by 3D printing?". The questionnaire was completed by 90 surgeons. On average, they had more than 10 years of experience (52, 57.8% ± 10.2%), worked in public hospitals (54, 60% ± 10.1%), and performed between 0 and 100 prostheses per year (60, 66.7% ± 9.7%). They also reported not using planning software (47, 52.2% ± 9.7%), navigation systems, or robots (62, 68.9% ± 9.6%). Regarding the use of technological innovation, they agreed on the extra surgical time needed (67, 74.4% ± 9.0%). The answers obtained were classified according to two criteria: (i) opinions, and (ii) motivations. Among the respondents, 51 (70% ± 9.5%) had positive and 22 (30% ± 9.5%) had negative opinions about 3D printing. The motivations were distributed among seven categories (surgery, materials, costs, logistics, time, customization, and regulatory) and mainly related to "pre-surgery" and "post-surgery" concerns. Finally, the results showed that the use of navigation systems or robots may be associated with a more positive view of 3DP. The purpose of our study was to examine knee surgeons' perceptions of 3DP at a time of significant expansion of this technology. Our study showed that there was no opposition to its implementation, although some surgeons indicated that they were waiting for validated results. They also questioned the entire supply chain, including hospitals, insurance companies, and manufacturers. Although there was no opposition to its implementation, 3D printing is at a crucial point in its development and its full adoption will require advances in all areas of joint replacement.

A Home-Mailed Versus General Practitioner-Delivered Vaginal Self-Sampling Kit for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial with a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objective: We assessed whether general practitioner (GP) delivery of a vaginal self-sampling kit was non-inferior to home-mailed delivery on cervical cancer screening (CCS) participation. Methods: Two hundred and ten French GPs from Indre-et-Loire French department were randomized into two groups, and their unscreened women patients aged 30-65 were included in February-March 2015. In the GP delivery group (n = 105 GPs; 1,806 women), women were sent a reminder letter inviting them to collect a vaginal self-sampling kit at their regular GP's practice. In the home-mailed delivery group (n = 105 GPs; 1,806 women), women were sent a reminder letter with a vaginal self-sampling kit directly at home. The primary outcome was participation in complete CCS within 9 months. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also performed. Results: At 9 months, 14.9% (95% CI: 12.9-16.9) and 27.9% (95% CI: 25.7-30.0) of women in the GP and home-mailed delivery groups participated in complete CCS. The absolute between-group difference was -13.0 percentage points (95% CI: -15.9 to -10.0) in favor of the home-mailed delivery group, crossing the non-inferiority pre-defined non-inferiority margin of 5%. The home-mailed delivery strategy cost 50.81€ more per additional woman screened. Conclusions: The GP delivery was inferior to home-mailed delivery in increasing participation in CCS. Home-mailed delivery of a vaginal self-sampling kit is a cost-effective way to increase CCS in that the additional cost of this strategy seems acceptable. This study is registered at www.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02255084.

Diagnosis Disclosure Process in Patients With Malignant Brain Tumors.

BACKGROUND: The way to disclose a cancer diagnosis has evolved, and psycho-oncology has developed a more prominent place in cancer care. The diagnosis disclosure process was established to improve the overall quality of patient care and the communication about a cancer diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the implementation of the disclosure process in a neurosurgical unit. METHODS: This study was conducted prospectively during a one-year period. All patients were diagnosed with malignant brain tumors and received their diagnosis using the disclosure process. The communication between the provider and the patient during diagnosis disclosure was recorded for analysis, and patients completed a satisfaction survey. FINDINGS: Ninety-one patients with a brain tumor diagnosis participated in the study. Twenty-six were unable to complete the satisfaction survey because they were either deceased or close to the end of their lives. In total, 65 questionnaires were sent to patients and their families, and 43 responded. Patients were satisfied with the quality of the disclosure process regarding information given, psychological support, and communication with all healthcare providers. This assessment allowed the authors to better characterize the impact of the disclosure process on the overall care of patients and to measure the effect of the components of the disclosure process on patient satisfaction.