One-piece implants: placement timing, surgical technique, loading protocol, and marginal bone loss.

PURPOSE: Osseointegration being an accepted and well-documented concept, attention is now directed towards simplification of the mechanical design of implants and towards achieving biomechanical success. The aim of this literature review is to provide an overview of the one-piece implant, with its advantages and disadvantages over a conventional two-piece implant. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched in the English language using the keywords one-piece implant, single-piece implant, single-stage implant surgery, and two-piece implant. Articles were selected on the basis of whether they had sufficient information related to placement timing, surgical procedure used, loading protocol, follow-up periods, marginal bone loss, and implant success rates of one-piece implants. For inclusion, a study group must have had a minimum of 30 one-piece implants followed for at least 1 year. DISCUSSION: Nineteen articles were subjected to the selection criteria. Out of 19 clinical trials only 11 met the selection criteria. Five parameters were taken into consideration for studying one-piece implants: placement timing, surgical technique, loading protocol, marginal bone loss, and implant survival rate. The data from the identified studies were tabulated according to these parameters and discussed. CONCLUSION: Delayed placement of one-piece implants is more commonly practiced than extraction and immediate placement. Most surgeons prefer surgeries using flaps as compared to flapless surgeries, and in most cases, one-piece implants were loaded immediately. Limited literature reveals both positive and negative results regarding the effect of a one-piece implant system on surrounding hard and soft tissues.

Diffuse colonic lipomatosis, presenting as perforation peritonitis and mimicking carcinoma colon.

Lipomas and lipomatosis of colon are rare in clinical practice. We herein report a case of diffuse colonic lipomatosis, fifth such case in literature which presented as perforation peritonitis, a presentation, never been reported earlier. On laparotomy, the findings suggested malignancy and appropriate surgery was done. Diffuse Colonic Lipomatosis, a rare and benign condition mimicks malignancy and should be kept as a differential diagnosis is unusual cases of colonic perforations.

Diagnostic sensitivity of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for IgG in hydatid disease.

CONTEXT: Hydatid disease in humans is most commonly caused by Echinococcus granulosus and results in development of cysts in various organs of body. The diagnosis is made by serology i.e. by estimation of antibody levels or on imaging studies. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is widely used for serological confirmation of the disease. AIM: To study the sensitivity of ELISA for IgG antibodies against E. granulosus in detecting hydatid disease of liver or lung. SETTINGS: A retrospective study of serology of all surgically confirmed cases of hydatid cysts of liver or lung in a tertiary level hospital. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The levels of IgG antibodies against Echinococcus, measured by ELISA, in patients of cystic lesions of liver or lung, who underwent surgery for the same and confirmed as having hydatid disease, during surgery or on histopathological examination after surgery, were recorded and analysed. There were 28 such patients from January 2001 to 2007. Twenty-three patients with hydatid cysts in liver and 4 in lung were included. One patient with hydatid liver was excluded from the study due to heavily calcified cyst. RESULTS: Two types of kits were used; one using crude antigen and other using purified antigens. Among 23 patients with hydatid cysts of liver, 8 had positive serology while 15 had either equivocal or negative results. All 4 patients with hydatid of lung had positive serology. CONCLUSION: ELISA test is not sensitive enough to be relied upon for confirmation of hydatid disease and considering its high cost, an alternative more specific, sensitive, cheaper and easily available test needs to be evaluated for confirming hydatid disease.