Long-term outcomes of isolated mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in different age groups of propensity-matched patients.

OBJECTIVES: Prothesis choice in isolated mitral valve replacement for patients aged 75 years or younger remains debated as most studies comparing prothesis type have included large proportions of combined operations and benefits are influenced by concomitant procedures. This study compared long-term outcomes of isolated mechanical versus bioprosthetic mitral valves in different age groups of propensity-matched populations. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicentre, propensity-matched observational study. Baseline characteristics, operative details and long-term outcomes (mortality and freedom from surgical/transcatheter reintervention) were collected. RESULTS: Totally, 1536 isolated mitral valve replacements (806 mechanical, 730 bioprosthetic) were performed between 2000 and 2017. Over 90% of eligible patients successfully underwent propensity matching, yielding 226 each of mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in patients aged <65 years and 171 each of bioprosthetic and mechanical valves in patients aged 65-75 years with median follow-up of 13 years (maximum 20 years). In matched patients <65 years, 10-year survival was superior with mechanical valves versus bioprosthetic valves (78.2% vs 69.8%, P = 0.029), as was 10-year freedom from reintervention (96.2% vs 81.3%, P < 0.001). For matched patients between 65 and 75 years, there were no differences between mechanical and bioprosthetic valves in 10-year survival (64.6% vs 60.8%, P = 0.86) or 10-year freedom from reintervention (94.0% vs 97.2%, P = 0.23). Rates of post-operative stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, renal failure and permanent pacemaker insertion were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring isolated mitral valve replacement, mechanical valves confer significantly better long-term survival and freedom from reintervention for patients <65 years, while no benefit is observed at age 65-75 years compared to bioprosthetic valves.

An outcome comparison of superficial versus deep plane dissection of cervicofacial flaps: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Cervicofacial flaps represent an excellent option for coverage of cheek defects secondary to oncologic resection, trauma or infection. However, there remains clinical equipoise regarding whether superficial plane or deep plane dissection results in the lowest rates of complications and optimal outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of proportions was conducted to assesses outcomes between cheek reconstruction superficial plane or deep plane cervicofacial flaps. Outcome measures included flap necrosis, ectropion, hematoma formation, facial nerve injury, and requirement for further operative or non-operative intervention. RESULTS: Of 881 citations identified for review, 10 met the inclusion criteria. In total, 284 patients received superficial plane flaps while 44 patients received deep plane flaps. Overall, reported rates of complications were low for cervicofacial flaps. The proportion of necrosis, ectropion, and hematoma were 3.05% (95% CI: 0.00-10.71%), 2.03% (95% CI: 0.41-4.42%), and 0.05% (95% CI: 0.00-3.29%), respectively. No cases of permanent facial nerve injury were reported. Sub-group analysis demonstrated comparable rates of complications between superficial and deep plane dissection and no difference was found between groups. Other complications were noted with low incidence. CONCLUSIONS: Currently published literature demonstrates that superficial and deep plane cervicofacial flaps exhibit similar rates of complications, although there is a low level of evidence overall. Overall, the rates of flap necrosis (3.05%), ectropion (2.03%), and hematoma (0.05%) are low. Notably, there were no reported cases of permanent facial nerve injury from either technique.