No abstract

PurposeTo systematically update evidence on the clinical efficacy and safety of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) versus retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) in patients with prostate cancer.Materials and MethodsElectronic databases, including ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, KoreaMed, KMbase, and others, were searched, collecting data from January 1980 to August 2013. The quality of selected systematic reviews was assessed using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews and the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for non-randomized studies.ResultsA total of 61 studies were included, including 38 from two previous systematic reviews rated as best available evidence and 23 additional studies that were more recent. There were no randomized controlled trials. Regarding safety, the risk of complications was lower for RARP than for RRP. Among functional outcomes, the risk of urinary incontinence was lower and potency rate was significantly higher for RARP than for RRP. Regarding oncologic outcomes, positive margin rates were comparable between groups, and although biochemical recurrence (BCR) rates were lower for RARP than for RRP, recurrence-free survival was similar after long-term follow up.ConclusionRARP might be favorable to RRP in regards to post-operative complications, peri-operative outcomes, and functional outcomes. Positive margin and BCR rates were comparable between the two procedures. As most of studies were of low quality, the results presented should be interpreted with caution, and further high quality studies controlling for selection, confounding, and selective reporting biases with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the clinical efficacy and safety of RARP.

The emergency department (ED) is where hand hygiene problems are significant as the procedures in the ED are often high risk and invasive. To date, there have been no comprehensive reviews on hand hygiene in EDs. The aim of this study was to investigate hand hygiene compliance (HHC) rate, factors affecting the HHC rate, and intervention strategies to improve HHC in EDs. Electronic databases were used to search for research published from 1948 to January 2018. The databases included ovidMEDLINE, ovidEMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Koreamed, and Kmbase. All study designs were included. Two reviewers independently extracted the data and assessed the bias risk using reliable and validated tools. A narrative synthesis was performed. Twenty-four studies, including 12 cross-sectional surveys and 12 interventional studies, were included. Of the 12 interventional studies reviewed, only 33% (N ¼ 4) reported HHC rates of more than 50%. Factors that influenced HHC included types of healthcare worker, hand hygiene indication, ED crowding, positive attitudes towards HHC, patient location, auditing hand hygiene, and type of shift. Almost all of the studies (83.3%) applied multimodal or dual interventions to improve HHC. A range of strategies, including education, monitoring and providing feedback, campaigns, and cues, effectively improved HHC. The review findings indicate that there is a room for improvement in HHC in EDs. Future randomized controlled trials are necessary to determine which intervention modalities are most effective and sustainable for HHC improvement.

Photonic microcapsules with onion-like topology are microfluidically designed to have cholesteric liquid crystals with opposite handedness in their core and shell. The microcapsules exhibit structural colors caused by dual photonic bandgaps, resulting in a rich variety of color on the optical palette. Moreover, the microcapsules can switch the colors from either core or shell depending on the selection of light-handedness.