Introduction: There are only a few studies on the clinical utility of filler injections for penile augmentation (PA) in patients with small penis syndrome (SPS), which is a type of anxiety or body dysmorphic disorder, not a true micropenis. Aim: To compare the clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HA) with polylactic acid (PLA) filler injection for temporary PA in patients with SPS. Methods: Our prospective, patient/evaluator-blind, comparative, randomized, non-inferiority trial consisted of a single filler injection and a 24-week post-injection period. Seventy-four men with SPS were included between November 2017 and February 2018. Patients were divided into those injected with HA (n = 39) and those injected with PLA filler (n = 35). Main Outcome Measure: The psychological effects of PA, based on the Beliefs about Penis Size Scale, penile girth, and satisfaction, were assessed at baseline and at 4, 12, and 24 weeks post-injection. Results: At 24 weeks, the mean penile girth increases were 2.1 ± 1.0 cm (P < .001) in the HA group and 1.6 ± 0.9 cm (P < .001) in the PLA group, with a mean difference of 0.5 ± 0.2 cm between groups (P = .031). In both groups, satisfaction levels significantly increased at 24 weeks, with 1.8 ± 1.7 and 1.6 ± 1.4 mean increases in the visual analog scale for penile appearance satisfaction in the HA and PLA groups, respectively (each P < .001), and 1.0 ± 1.1 and 0.7 ± 1.2 mean increases in the visual analog scale for sexual life satisfaction in the HA and PLA groups, respectively (each P < .001), with no significant differences between groups (P = .950 and P = .287). The mean Beliefs about Penis Size Scale scores significantly decreased at 24 weeks, with 7.8 ± 8.3 and 5.3 ± 7.2 mean decreases in the HA and PLA groups, respectively (each P < .001), and no significant difference between the groups (P = .920). There were no serious adverse events, but filler injection-related adverse events in the HA and the PLA groups were reported in 2 cases (5.13%) and 5 cases (14.29%), respectively (P = .245). Clinical Implications: Our study provides an overview of clinical course after HA and PLA filler injections for PA and suggests that filler injections can be considered an alternative approach in patients with SPS. Strengths & Limitations: Our study is the first to assess the psychological symptoms in patients with SPS who received the filler injection for PA; however, the follow-up duration was insufficient to prove the long-term outcomes of fillers. Conclusion: Without serious adverse events, HA and PLA filler injections for PA significantly resulted in not only an augmentative effect but also improvement of psychological distress, and the clinical utility was comparable between the fillers.

Survival analyses for malignancies, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC), have primarily been conducted using the Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. We compared the random survival forest (RSF) and DeepSurv models with the CPH model to predict recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) in non-metastatic clear cell RCC (nm-cRCC) patients. Our cohort included 2139 nm-cRCC patients who underwent curative-intent surgery at six Korean institutions between 2000 and 2014. The data of two largest hospitals’ patients were assigned into the training and validation dataset, and the data of the remaining hospitals were assigned into the external validation dataset. The performance of the RSF and DeepSurv models was compared with that of CPH using Harrel’s C-index. During the follow-up, recurrence and cancer-specific deaths were recorded in 190 (12.7%) and 108 (7.0%) patients, respectively, in the training-dataset. Harrel’s C-indices for RFS in the test-dataset were 0.794, 0.789, and 0.802 for CPH, RSF, and DeepSurv, respectively. Harrel’s C-indices for CSS in the test-dataset were 0.831, 0.790, and 0.834 for CPH, RSF, and DeepSurv, respectively. In predicting RFS and CSS in nm-cRCC patients, the performance of DeepSurv was superior to that of CPH and RSF. In no distant time, deep learning-based survival predictions may be useful in RCC patients.

Background: Studies about the clinical utility of fillers on penile augmentation (PA) are lacking. Furthermore, no randomized study has compared the utilities of fillers. Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety between hyaluronic acid (HA) and polylactic acid (PLA) filler injection for PA. Methods: This prospective, randomized patient/evaluator-blind, comparative multicenter study consisted of an initial 2-week baseline period and 48-week patient/evaluator-blind post-injection period. 72 patients with small penis syndrome were enrolled from 3 institutions between March–July 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: the HA group, comprising 36 patients injected with HA, and the PLA group, comprising 36 patients injected with PLA. Main Outcome Measures: Penile girth and satisfaction were assessed at baseline and at 4, 12, 24, and 48 weeks after injection. Results: Penile girth increases adequately lasted ≤48 weeks in both groups (16.95 ± 10.53 and 13.49 ± 9.98 mm of mean increase in the HA and PLA groups, respectively; P < .001). The mean penile girth increase in the HA group was significantly greater than that in the PLA group at 4 weeks (P < .001). Subsequently, it gradually decreased and was no longer significantly different at 48 weeks (P = .075). Satisfaction levels increased after injection and were maintained ≤48 weeks. No significant differences were observed in the overall satisfaction level between the groups (P > .05). Filler injection–related adverse events were mild and transient and occurred in 1 and 3 patients in the HA and PLA groups, respectively. Clinical Implications: This study provides an overview of the efficacy and safety of HA and PLA fillers, which are the most commonly used soft tissue fillers for PA. Strength and Limitations: This study, to our knowledge, is the first to compare the efficacy and safety between different filler injections for human PA. However, it was impossible to perform a researcher-blinded trial because of the unique properties of fillers, and 31 patients (43.1%) were dropped during the study period. Conclusions: Both HA and PLA filler injections for PA led to a significant augmentative effect without serious adverse events and had clinically comparable efficacy and safety.

This study aimed to identify the determinant factors for clinical outcomes and survival rates of patients with cardiac arrest (CA) concurrent with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who underwent extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We retrospectively evaluated 37 patients admitted to our emergency department between January 2006 and August 2012 for AMI-induced CA treated with ECPR during ongoing continuous chest compressions. Mean patient age was 61.4 ± 11.3 years, and 27 patients (73%) were men. Mean CPR time was 50.8 ± 35.4 min. Door-to-ECMO and door-to-balloon times were 84.4 ± 55.3 and 98.4 ± 56.8 min, respectively. Mean ECMO time was 106.4 ± 84.7 h; nine (24%) patients died within 24 h after ECMO initiation. Twelve (32%) patients were weaned off ECMO, seven (19%) of whom survived >30 days after ECMO removal; all except one had Cerebral Performance Category Grade 1. Of the patients who survived, 5 of them were able to be discharged. In multivariate analysis, statistical significance was only observed in door-to-ECMO time ≤60 min (OR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1,177–852.025; p = 0.033). We conclude that ECMO insertion within 60 min of the arrival of patients with AMI and CA at the ED appears to be a good option for maintaining myocardial and systemic perfusion, thereby increasing the survival rate of these patients.

Although several types of penile augmentation (PA) fillers have been recently introduced, no long-term follow-up studies have compared them. This study aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of hyaluronic acid (HA) and polylactic acid (PLA) filler injections for PA. Our multicenter, patient-blinded/evaluator-blinded, randomized comparative trial was performed for 18 months after the single injection of fillers. Sixty-seven healthy men reporting a small penis were administered an injection between November 2016 and May 2017. Subjects were divided into the HA group (n = 33) and PLA group (n = 34). At 18 months, the mean penile girths had significantly increased in both groups (each p < 0.001). Changes in the mean penile girth of both groups were not significantly different during the study period. Satisfaction levels at 18 months were significantly higher than those at baseline in both groups (each p < 0.01). Changes in satisfaction levels did not differ significantly during the study period. Injection-associated adverse events (AEs) occurred in three (9.1%) patients in the HA group and in two (5.9%) patients in the PLA group; no serious AEs occurred. In conclusion, HA and PLA filler injections for PA led to significant augmentation and increased satisfaction. Clinical efficacy and safety were comparable between groups.

Background. The prognostic significance of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in nonmetastatic renal cell carcinoma (non-mRCC) is controversial, although NLR has been established as a prognostic factor in several cancers. The objective of our study was to assess the prognostic significance of preoperative NLR in non-mRCC, based on a large, multicenter cohort analysis. Methods. Totally, 1,284 non-mRCC patients undergoing surgery were enrolled from six institutions between 2000 and 2014. Recurrence-free survival (RFS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were calculated, and the prognostic significance of NLR was evaluated. Results. Patients with higher NLR had larger tumors (p<0.001), higher T stage (p<0.001), worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p<0.001), worse symptoms (p=0.003), sarcomatoid differentiation (p=0.004), and tumor necrosis (p<0.001). The 5-year RFS and CSS rates were significantly lower in patients with high NLR than in those with low NLR (each p<0.001). Multivariate analysis identified NLR to be an independent predictor of RFS and CSS (each p<0.05). Moreover, predictive accuracy of multivariate models for RFS and CSS increased by 2.2% and 4.2%, respectively, with NLR inclusion. Conclusions. Higher NLR was associated with worse clinical behavior of non-mRCC. Also, NLR was a significant prognostic factor of both RFS and CSS.