RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The present study examines the effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on radical prostatectomy performed as part of localized prostate cancer treatment in Turkey. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was made of the data of 176 patients from 8 centers in Turkey who underwent radical prostatectomy due to localized prostate cancer over the 2 years spanning March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2021. Within this timeframe, March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2020, was denoted the 1-year pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period, while March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, was denoted the 1-year coronavirus disease 2019 period. An analysis was made of whether there was a difference in the number of radical prostatectomies performed for prostate cancer, the time from biopsy to operation, and the biopsy and radical prostatectomy pathology between the 2 periods. RESULTS: It was found that the number of radical prostatectomies performed for localized prostate cancer during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic was statistically and highly significantly fewer than in the pre-coronavirus disease 2019 period (P <.001). The patients diagnosed with Gleason 3+3 (low risk) prostate cancer were statistically significantly fewer in number in the coronavirus disease 2019 period (P <.001). The pathological Gleason score was upgrading than the biopsy Gleason score in all patients who underwent in both periods (P <.001). When the periods were compared, the pathological involvement determined by lymph node dissection performed during radical prostatectomy was found to be decreased in the coronavirus disease 2019 period, although the difference was not statistically significant (P =.051). CONCLUSION: As with many diseases, the diagnosis and treatment of prostate cancer have been adversely affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the reliability of the Lichtman classification among residents, orthopedic surgeons, and hand surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was carried out with 30 male observers (mean age 37.8 years; range, 26 to 62 years) who agreed to participate in the study. All observers were orthopedic surgeons. The observers were separated into three groups that consist of 10 residents, 10 orthopedic surgeons, and 10 hand surgeons. The anteroposterior and lateral wrist radiographs of 20 patients (12 males, 8 females; mean age 49 years; range, 38 to 74 years) diagnosed as Kienböck's disease were sent to observers via e-mail as a survey. All 40 radiographs were asked to be kept classified. RESULTS: The classification of Kienböck's disease was analyzed by 30 observers on 40 digital radiographs. The overall agreement with the Lichtman classification was fair within all of the observers (kappa=0.203). When groups were evaluated within themselves, the agreement level was found poor in group 1 (kappa=0.162) and fair in group 2 (kappa=0.210) and group 3 (kappa=0.252). CONCLUSION: A useful classification system in orthopedics and traumatology should classify the type of musculoskeletal disorder reliably, facilitate communication in clinical practice, guide preoperative planning, and enable comparison of results between studies. The Lichtman classification alone is insufficient and should be supported by other imaging and measurement techniques.