Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Breast J ; 18(3): 253-6, 2012.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22583195

ABSTRACT

We aimed to examine a cohort of patients presenting with breast implant complications to establish the sensitivity and specificity of clinical examination, Ultrasound Scanning (US) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in the diagnosis of implant rupture, and to examine the correlation between US and MRI. We performed a 26-month retrospective review. Patients underwent US and MRI to exclude rupture. Results of US and MRI were compared prospectively for concordance, then retrospectively to clinical findings and surgical diagnosis. Thirty-four patients with 60 implants were reviewed. The sensitivities of clinical diagnosis, US, and MRI for rupture was 42%, 50%, and 83%, respectively, while the specificities were 50%, 90%, and 90%. The concordance between US and MRI was 87%. MRI is the investigation of choice for implant rupture. US is a valuable alternative with good concordance with MRI. When US is positive for implant rupture an MRI is not necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Knowledge of the sensitivity and specificity as well as the concordance between the two investigations is useful to ensure the appropriate use of available resources.


Subject(s)
Breast Implantation/adverse effects , Breast Implants/adverse effects , Magnetic Resonance Imaging , Postoperative Complications/diagnosis , Prosthesis Failure , Ultrasonography, Mammary , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/economics , Postoperative Complications/diagnostic imaging , Prospective Studies , Retrospective Studies , Ultrasonography, Mammary/economics
3.
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg ; 63(7): 1105-9, 2010 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19596622

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Controversy still exists regarding the choice of implant material for orbital floor reconstructions, in particular the use of silicone. We aimed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of orbital floor reconstructions with silicone versus other non-silicone implants. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a 12 year retrospective review of patients who had orbital floor reconstructions for fractures at the Royal Hobart Hospital, Tasmania, Australia, from 1995 to 2007. Surgical admission notes, CT reports, operation records, outpatient notes, and complications were recorded. Long-term follow-up consisted of a structured telephone interview assessing patient outcomes and satisfaction, including ongoing disability, following orbital floor repair. RESULTS: Eighty one patients were identified as having had orbital floor reconstruction with an implant. Mean long-term follow-up was 63 months. Outcomes of Silicone implants (n=58) were compared to non-silicone implant materials (n=23) including titanium mesh, 'Lactasorb', 'Resorb-X', autologous cartilage, and bone graft. Statistically significant advantages in the silicone group were found in the number of patients with palpable implants (24% vs 63%, p=0.005), the number of patients without any complaint (67% vs 32%, p=0.004), and the number of patients requiring subsequent surgery for complications related to their implants (5% vs 23%, p=0.046). CONCLUSION: The appropriate use of silicone implants for orbital floor reconstruction can have good results, contrary to much of the literature, with low complication rates including an acceptably low rate of infection and extrusion, as well as high patient satisfaction. To establish definite guidelines for best surgical practise, particularly amongst synthetic implant materials, prospective study is required.


Subject(s)
Orbit/surgery , Orbital Fractures/surgery , Plastic Surgery Procedures , Prostheses and Implants , Silicones , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications , Plastic Surgery Procedures/methods , Reoperation , Young Adult
4.
Am J Transplant ; 5(9): 2315-7, 2005 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16095516

ABSTRACT

Little is known about the implications of performing a renal transplant on a patient who is already pregnant. This case study reports a successful outcome of pregnancy, diagnosed coincidentally following renal transplantation at 13 weeks gestation. The recipient was a 23-year-old woman with chronic kidney disease who received a live-related renal transplant from her father. Pregnancy was discovered at routine ultrasound scanning of the renal allograft at 5 days posttransplant and estimated at 13 weeks gestation. She received ciclosporin monotherapy as immunosuppression throughout the pregnancy, and was given valacyclovir as prophylaxis against cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection. Renal function remained stable throughout the pregnancy, which progressed normally, resulting in the vaginal delivery of a healthy, liveborn male infant at 37 weeks gestation. This case study demonstrates that transplantation during pregnancy can have a successful outcome.


Subject(s)
Kidney Failure, Chronic/therapy , Kidney Transplantation/methods , Acyclovir/analogs & derivatives , Acyclovir/therapeutic use , Adult , Cyclosporine/therapeutic use , Family Health , Female , Humans , Immunosuppressive Agents/therapeutic use , Infant, Newborn , Kidney/pathology , Living Donors , Male , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications , Pregnancy Outcome , Pregnancy, High-Risk , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Valacyclovir , Valine/analogs & derivatives , Valine/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...