OBJECTIVE: This study investigated age-related differences in nasal morphometry and the degree of changes within an individual over at least a 10-year period by pairing previous and recent three-dimensional reconstructed computed tomography (CT) images.
METHODS: Forty-eight adult Korean patients who underwent at least two CT scans of the nasal region with an interval of at least 10 years were selected. Patients were categorized into six subgroups according to sex and age (20-39 years, 40-49 years, and ≥50 years) at the time of initial imaging. Eight nasal parameters were measured on the initial and recent images, and paired comparisons between the two images were performed based on the data. The differences in the degree of change by age were also analyzed.
RESULTS: Over an average image interval of 12 years, men exhibited an increase in the nasofrontal angle (3.2°±5.4°, P=0.041), profile nasal length (1.7±1.7 mm, P=0.002), and nasal bridge height (1.2±1.6 mm, P=0.002). Conversely, they showed a decrease in the nasofacial angle (-2.3°±2.9°, P=0.010). Women also demonstrated an increase in the nasofrontal angle (2.5°±5.2°, P=0.010), profile nasal length (1.4±1.9 mm, P<0.001), and nasal bridge height (1.3±1.6 mm, P<0.001). However, they exhibited a decrease in the nasofacial angle (-2.0°±2.1°, P<0.001), glabella angle (-9.1°±9.8°, P<0.001), and pyriform angle (-8.5°±10.1°, P<0.001). With the exception of the nasal bridge height (P=0.036) and pyriform angle (P=0.022), the degree of changes in most parameters did not show significant differences across age groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the aging nose exhibits a greater nasal length with inferior angulation of the nasal tip, with an increase in the nasofrontal angle, profile nasal length, and nasal bridge height, along with a decrease in the nasofacial angle. The degree of most nasal morphologic changes demonstrated no significant differences by specific age group.

OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study is to compare clinical outcomes, complication rate, and survivorship in octogenarians who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) by performing a matched cohort analysis.
METHODS: We analyzed 75 medial UKAs performed by a single experienced surgeon. The included cases were matched with 75 TKAs performed during the same study period. Potential TKA matches used identical exclusion criteria. UKAs were age-, gender-, and body mass index (BMI)-matched at the rate of 1 UKA to 1 TKA from our departmental database. Clinical evaluation included the visual analog scale for pain, range of motion (ROM-flexion and extension), Knee Society Score (KSS), and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Each patient was clinically evaluated on the day before the surgery (T0) and at two follow-ups at least 12 months (T1) and 24 months (T2) after the surgery. For the survivorship, revision was defined as failure of the implant (periprosthetic joint infection, periprosthetic fracture, or aseptic loosening), and survival was based on implant revision or patient death. Undesirable clinical developments that were not present at baseline or that increased in severity after treatment were classified as adverse events.
RESULTS: The mean age at the time of the surgery was 82.1 ± 1.9 years for UKA and 81.5 ± 1.8 years for TKA (p = 0.06). The two groups differed in regard to surgical time (UKA 44.9 ± 7.2 min; TKA 54.4 ± 11.3 min; p < 0.001); furthermore, the UKA group showed better function (ROM; flexion and extension) than the TKA group at each follow-up time point (p < 0.05). Both groups reported a significant improvement in all clinical scores (KSS and OKS) when compared with their preoperative status (p < 0.05), while no differences were found between the groups at each follow-up (p > 0.05). The UKA group reported 7 (9.3%) failures, while TKA reported 6 failures. There were no survival differences between the groups (T1: p = 0.2; T2: p = 0.5). Overall complication rate was 6% in the UKA group versus 9.75% in TKA (p = 0.2).
CONCLUSIONS: The UKA and TKA patients had similar clinical outcomes, post-operative range of motion, and survivorship in octogenarians with medial knee osteoarthritis, with comparable complication rate. Both the surgical procedures may be considered in this patient population, but further long-term follow-up is needed.
METHODS: Level III.

UNASSIGNED: Monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) is a life-threatening condition often observed in patients with structural heart disease. Ventricular tachycardia ablation through radiation therapy (VT-ART) for sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia seems promising, effective, and safe. VT-ART delivers focused, high-dose radiation, usually in a single fraction of 25 Gy, allowing ablation of VT by inducing myocardial scars. The procedure is fully non-invasive; therefore, it can be easily performed in patients with contraindications to invasive ablation procedures. Definitive data are lacking, and no direct comparison with standard procedures is available.
UNASSIGNED: The aim of this multicenter observational study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of VT-ART, comparing the clinical outcome of patients undergone to VT-ART to patients not having received such a procedure. The two groups will not be collected by direct, prospective accrual to avoid randomization among the innovative and traditional arm: A retrospective selection through matched pair analysis will collect patients presenting features similar to the ones undergone VT-ART within the consortium (in each center independently). Our trial will enroll patients with optimized medical therapy in whom endocardial and/or epicardial radiofrequency ablation (RFA), the gold standard for VT ablation, is either unfeasible or fails to control VT recurrence. Our primary outcome is investigating the difference in overall cardiovascular survival among the group undergoing VT-ART and the one not exposed to the innovative procedure. The secondary outcome is evaluating the difference in ventricular event-free survival after the last procedure (i.e., last RFA vs. VT-ART) between the two groups. An additional secondary aim is to evaluate the reduction in the number of VT episodes comparing the 3 months before the procedure to the ones recorded at 6 months (from the 4th to 6th month) following VT-ART and RFA, respectively. Other secondary objectives include identifying the benefits of VT-ART on cardiac function, as evaluated through an electrocardiogram, echocardiographic, biochemical variables, and on patient quality of life. We calculated the sample size (in a 2:1 ratio) upon enrolling 149 patients: 100 in the non-exposed control group and 49 in the VT-ART group. Progressively, on a multicentric basis supervised by the promoting center in the VT-ART consortium, for each VT-ART patient enrollment, a matched pair patient profile according to the predefined features will be shared with the consortium to enroll a patient that has not undergone VT-ART.
UNASSIGNED: Our trial will provide insight into the efficacy and safety of VT-ART through a matched pair analysis, via an observational, multicentric study of two groups of patients with or without VT-ART in the multicentric consortium (with subgroup stratification into dynamic cohorts).

Geriatric trauma is expected to increase due to the lifestyle and activity of the aging population and will be among the major future challenges in health care. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate differences between polytraumatized geriatric and non-geriatric patients regarding mortality, length-of-stay and complications with a matched pair analysis. We included patients older than 17 years with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 or more admitted to our level 1 trauma center between January 2008 and December 2015. The cohort was stratified into two groups (age < 70 and ≥ 70 years). One-to-one matching was performed based on gender, ISS, mechanism of injury (penetrating/blunt), Glasgow coma scale (GCS), base excess, and the presence of coagulopathy (international normalized ratio (INR) ≥ 1.4). Outcome was compared using the paired t-test and McNemar-test. A total of 1457 patients were identified. There were 1022 male (70%) and 435 female patients. Three hundred and sixty-four patients (24%) were older than 70 years. Matching resulted in 57 pairs. Mortality as well as length-of-stay were comparable between geriatric and non-geriatric polytraumatized patients. Complication rate (34% vs. 56%, p = 0.031) was significantly higher in geriatric patients. This indicates the possibility of similar outcomes in geriatric polytraumatized patients receiving optimal care.

BACKGROUND: En bloc liver and adjacent organs resections are technically demanding procedures. Few case series and nonmatched comparative studies reported the outcomes of multivisceral liver resections (MLRs).
OBJECTIVE: To compare the short and long-term outcomes of patients submitted MLRs with those submitted to isolated hepatectomies.
METHODS: From a prospective database, a case-matched 1:2 study was performed comparing MLRs and isolated hepatectomy. Additionally, a risk analysis was performed to evaluate the association between MLRs and perioperative morbidity, mortality, and long-term survival.
RESULTS: Fifty-three MLRs were compared with 106 matched controls. Patients undergoing MLRs had longer operative time (430 [320-525] vs 360 [270-440] minutes, P = .005); higher estimated blood loss (600 [400-800] vs 400 [100-600] mL; P = .011); longer hospital stay (8 [6-14] vs 7 [5-9] days; P = .003); and higher postoperative mortality (9.4% vs 1.9%, P = .042). Number of resected organs was not an independent prognostic factor for perioperative major complications (odds ratio [OR], 1 organ = 1.8 [0.54-6.05]; OR ≥ 2, organs = 4.0 [0.35-13.84]) or perioperative mortality (OR, 1, organ = 5.2 [0.91-29.51]; OR ≥ 2, organs = 6.5 [0.52-79.60]). No differences in overall (P = .771) and disease-free survival (P = .28) were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: MLRs are feasible with acceptable morbidity but relatively high perioperative mortality. MLRs did not negatively affect long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This analysis aims at evaluating the impact of multidisciplinary tumor boards on clinical outcome of multiple tumor entities, the effect of the specific number of multidisciplinary tumor boards and potential differences between the tumor entities.
METHODS: By a matched-pair analysis we compared the response to treatment, overall survival, relapse or disease free survival and progression free survival of patients whose cases were discussed in a tumor board meeting with patients whose cases were not. It was performed with patients registered in the cancer registry of the University of Bonn and diagnosed between 2010 and 2016. After the matching process with a pool of 7262 patients a total of 454 patients with 66 different tumor types were included in this study.
RESULTS: First, patients with three or more multidisciplinary tumor board meetings in their history show a significantly better overall survival than patients with no tumor board meeting. Second, response to treatment, relapse free survival and time to progression were not found to be significantly different. Third, there was no significant difference for a specific tumor entity.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed a positive impact of a higher number of multidisciplinary tumor boards on the clinical outcome. Also, our analysis hints towards a positive effect of multidisciplinary tumor boards on overall survival.

BACKGROUND: Research shows disparities in cancer outcomes by ethnicity or socio-economic status. Therefore, it is the aim of our study to perform a matched-pair analysis which compares the outcome of German and non-German (in the following described as \'foreign\') cancer patients being treated at the Center for Integrated Oncology (CIO) Köln Bonn at the University Hospital of Bonn between January 2010 and June 2016.
METHODS: During this time, 6314 well-documented patients received a diagnosis of cancer. Out of these patients, 219 patients with foreign nationality could be matched to German patients based on diagnostic and demographic criteria and were included in the study. All of these 438 patients were well characterized concerning survival data (Overall survival, Progression-free survival and Time to progression) and response to treatment.
RESULTS: No significant differences regarding the patients\' survival and response rates were seen when all German and foreign patients were compared. A subgroup analysis of German and foreign patients with head and neck cancer revealed a significantly longer progression-free survival for the German patients. Differences in response to treatment could not be found in this subgroup analysis.
CONCLUSIONS: In summary, no major differences in survival and response rates of German and foreign cancer patients were revealed in this study. Nevertheless, the differences in progression-free survival, which could be found in the subgroup analysis of patients with head and neck cancer, should lead to further research, especially evaluating the role of infectious diseases like human papillomavirus (HPV) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) on carcinogenesis and disease progression.

We present a method for comparing association networks in a matched case-control design, which provides a high-level comparison of co-occurrence patterns of features after adjusting for confounding factors. We demonstrate this approach by examining the differential distribution of chronic medical conditions in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to the distribution of these conditions in their matched controls.
Newly diagnosed MDD patients were matched to controls based on their demographic characteristics, socioeconomic status, place of residence, and healthcare service utilization in the Korean National Health Insurance Service\'s National Sample Cohort. Differences in the networks of chronic medical conditions in newly diagnosed MDD cases treated with antidepressants, and their matched controls, were prioritized with a permutation test accounting for the false discovery rate. Sensitivity analyses for the associations between prioritized pairs of chronic medical conditions and new MDD diagnosis were performed with regression modeling.
By comparing the association networks of chronic medical conditions in newly diagnosed depression patients and their matched controls, five pairs of such conditions were prioritized among 105 possible pairs after controlling the false discovery rate at 5%. In sensitivity analyses using regression modeling, four out of the five prioritized pairs were statistically significant for the interaction terms.
Association networks in a matched case-control design can provide a high-level comparison of comorbid features after adjusting for confounding factors, thereby supplementing traditional clinical study approaches. We demonstrate the differential co-occurrence pattern of chronic medical conditions in patients with MDD and prioritize the chronic conditions that have statistically significant interactions in regression models for depression.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic liver resection belongs to the standard repertoire in hepatobiliary surgery. The advantages and disadvantages are still the subject of controversial discussion.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the perioperative and long-term outcomes of laparoscopic and open liver resections.
METHODS: All patients who underwent liver resection in the Department of Surgery at the certified liver center of the  municipal hospital Karlsruhe were analyzed. From a total of 268 hepatic resections 65 laparoscopic liver resections were identified and matched 1:1 with 65 open resections, based primarily on the extent of the resection and secondarily on diagnosis, age and gender of the patients. The demographic data, comorbidities, perioperative and long-term outcomes were compared.
RESULTS: Both groups had comparable demographic parameters and comorbidities. Operation time, duration of intensive care stay and percentage of negative resection margins were comparable in both groups. The 30-day mortality was 0% and 90-day mortality 1.5% in both groups. The laparoscopic group showed lower intraoperative and postoperative transfusion rates (p < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (p < 0.001) and lower overall morbidity (p < 0.001). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall and tumor-free survival of patients with colorectal liver metastases was comparable (p = 0.984; p = 0.947). The same applied for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas (p = 0.803; p = 0.935).
CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver resections have identical long-term outcomes with lower overall morbidity. Laparoscopic liver resections offer advantages regarding transfusion rates, length of hospital stay and postoperative complications.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare clinical outcome of cervical spine metastasis with those of thoracic and lumbar spine metastasis after surgery for metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC).
METHODS: Data from nineteen patients with cervical spine metastasis were matched to thirty-eight patients with thoracic spine metastasis and thirty-eight patients with lumbar spine metastasis from a cohort of 183 patients with MSCC treated with posterior decompression and spine stabilization. Three groups were matched for eleven potential prognostic characteristics, and at least nine of eleven characteristics should match between the matched patients.
RESULTS: Deterioration of motor function was observed in 37% patients with cervical spine metastasis, 18% patients with thoracic spine metastasis, and 13% patients with lumbar spine metastasis after surgery (P = 0.02). Postoperative median survival was 11.5 months for cervical spine metastasis, 10.9 months for thoracic spine metastasis, and 10.7 months for lumbar spine metastasis (P = 0.64). Surgery-related complications occurred in 18.9% of all patients and showed no significant difference between the three groups (P = 0.63). Each group experienced improvement in pain outcome when compared between pre- and post-operative pain scores (P < 0.01), while the differences had no significance between the three groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: MSCC in cervical spine is less likely to improve or maintain motor function as compared with MSCC in thoracic and lumbar spine after surgery. However, its clinical outcomes appear similar to those of thoracic and lumbar spine metastasis in terms of postoperative survival, surgery-related complication, and pain outcome.