Synovial chondromatosis: a case series and review of the literature.

This case series reviews 2 patients worked up and treated for unilateral synovial chondromatosis of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ). The first was a 58-year-old female evaluated and treated for synovial chondromatosis of the left TMJ using an arthrotomy of the joint to remove the cartilaginous and osteocartilaginous nodules. The second is a 63-year-old male who was evaluated and treated for synovial chondromatosis of the right TMJ with the removal of extracapsular masses and an arthrotomy with intra-joint removal of nodules. Six-year radiographic follow-up demonstrated no recurrence of the pathology in his case. The cases are reviewed in this article, along with a current review of the literature.

Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of the Evidence Base for Nasoalveolar Molding (NAM).

OBJECTIVE: To critically appraise the body of scientific literature supporting the risks and efficacy of nasoalveolar molding (NAM), specifically in contrast to alternative methods of presurgical infant orthopedics (PSIO) or to treatment without PSIO. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five outcome domains were considered: nasolabial aesthetics; dentoalveolar relationship; midfacial growth; cost and burden of care; and number of anesthetic events. DESIGN: MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus were queried for articles from the first description of the Grayson-Santiago NAM technique (1993) through December 13, 2021. After the application of inclusionary and exclusionary criteria, selected articles were critically appraised using a systematic framework that included risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools. RESULTS: A total of 88 studies were included. Level-I and -II evidence showed on par or better approximation and alveolar alignment achieved by NAM compared to other PSIO. Level-II and -III evidence showed improved nasolabial aesthetics compared to other PSIOs. Level-II and -III evidence supported no harm to maxillofacial skeletal growth through age 12. Sparse level-III evidence supported a reduced number of labial or nasal revisions following NAM. Level-II and -III evidence showed NAM requiring upfront cost and frequent appointments but reducing caregiver psychosocial burden and reducing long-term costs compared to select alternatives. Many studies carried a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence supports the overall efficacy of NAM regarding short/mid-term outcomes, with a low risk of negative effects on midfacial growth or dental development. The high risk of bias discovered in many papers underscores the need for robust study design in future research.

Comparison of Reconstructive Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients With Preexisting Subpectoral Implants: Implant-Sparing Mastectomy With Delayed Implant Exchange Versus Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Women who have undergone prior augmentation mammoplasty represent a unique subset of breast cancer patients with several options available for breast reconstruction. We performed a single institution review of surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction performed in patients with breast cancer with prior history of subpectoral breast augmentation. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved retrospective review was conducted among patients with previously mentioned criteria treated at our institution between 2000 and 2014. Reconstructions were grouped into 2 categories as follows: (1) removal of preexisting subpectoral implant during mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement and (2) implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed exchange to a larger implant. We reviewed demographics, tumor features, and reconstruction outcomes of these groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients had preexisting subpectoral implants. Of the 63 breast reconstructions performed, 18 (28.6%) had immediate tissue expander placed and 45 (71.4%) had implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed implant exchange. The groups were comparable based on age, body mass index, cancer type, tumor grade, TNM stage at presentation, and hormonal receptor status. No significant difference was noted between tumor margins or subsequent recurrence, mastectomy specimen weight, removed implant volume, volume of implant placed during reconstruction, or time from mastectomy to final implant placement. Rates of complications were significantly higher in the tissue expander group compared to the implant-sparing mastectomy group 7 (38.9%) versus 4 (8.9%) (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-sparing mastectomy with delayed implant exchange in patients with preexisting subpectoral implants is safe and has fewer complications compared to tissue expander placement. There was no difference noted in the final volume of implant placed, time interval for final implant placement, or tumor margins.

Comparison of Reconstructive Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients With Preexisting Subpectoral Implants: Implant-Sparing Mastectomy With Delayed Implant Exchange Versus Immediate Tissue Expander Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Women who have undergone prior augmentation mammoplasty represent a unique subset of breast cancer patients with several options available for breast reconstruction. We performed a single institution review of surgical outcomes of breast reconstruction performed in patients with breast cancer with prior history of subpectoral breast augmentation. METHODS: Institutional review board-approved retrospective review was conducted among patients with previously mentioned criteria treated at our institution between 2000 and 2014. Reconstructions were grouped into 2 categories as follows: (1) removal of preexisting subpectoral implant during mastectomy with immediate tissue expander placement and (2) implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed exchange to a larger implant. We reviewed demographics, tumor features, and reconstruction outcomes of these groups. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients had preexisting subpectoral implants. Of the 63 breast reconstructions performed, 18 (28.6%) had immediate tissue expander placed and 45 (71.4%) had implant-sparing mastectomy followed by delayed implant exchange. The groups were comparable based on age, body mass index, cancer type, tumor grade, TNM stage at presentation, and hormonal receptor status. No significant difference was noted between tumor margins or subsequent recurrence, mastectomy specimen weight, removed implant volume, volume of implant placed during reconstruction, or time from mastectomy to final implant placement. Rates of complications were significantly higher in the tissue expander group compared to the implant-sparing mastectomy group 7 (38.9%) versus 4 (8.9%) (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Implant-sparing mastectomy with delayed implant exchange in patients with preexisting subpectoral implants is safe and has fewer complications compared to tissue expander placement. There was no difference noted in the final volume of implant placed, time interval for final implant placement, or tumor margins.

Duoderm®-Bra for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with tissue expander reconstruction is a widely used technique that can produce aesthetically pleasing reconstruction results after mastectomy. Nipple position and healthy mastectomy flaps with good vascularity are important determinants of an adequate aesthetic final result. An initial high fill volume of the expander can produce a more natural breast mound appearance postoperatively. However, this can often lead to ischemia with loss of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC). Conversely, low intraoperative fill rates are conducive to enhanced tissue circulation and viability. But this may lead to poor skin envelope draping and nipple placement lower than desired. We have developed a new technique called "Duoderm®-bra" that brings together both mastectomy skin tissue health and aesthetic success with optimal nipple positioning. We hypothesized that with Duoderm®-bra, the NAC can be stabilized in the desired high position and ptosis can be reduced. We also hypothesized that by eliminating the need for acellular dermal matrix and intraoperative fill, "Duoderm®-bra" would decrease the rate of complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of using novel "Duoderm®-bra" technique in NSM. METHODS: After an institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review of 35 consecutive patients was done with 65 breasts undergoing NSM and tissue expander reconstruction by the same plastic surgeon. Patients in whom "Duoderm®-bra" was used were compared with patients without the "Duoderm®-bra." Patients with acellular dermal matrix were excluded. Age, ptosis grade, preoperative nipple to IMF ratio (R/L), tumor characteristics, mastectomy specimen weight (R/L), time from mastectomy to first fill, time from mastectomy to final fill, final fill volume (R/L), NAC and skin necrosis, and other complications requiring surgery were recorded. Postoperative photographs for NAC positioning (side view most projected point versus at a lower point) were assessed using a scoring system. Two groups were then compared. RESULTS: Complications were higher in the non-Duoderm® group compared with Duoderm®-bra (odds ratio, 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.35-15.04; P = 0.021). Optimum nipple positioning was significantly higher with Duoderm®-bra compared with no Duoderm®-bra (odds ratio, 50.0; 95% CI, 10.9-230.1; P < 0.0001). There was no difference in timing from mastectomy to completion of expansion in the Duoderm® group compared with no Duoderm®-bra group (mean difference, -2.35; 95% CI, -10.37 to 5.68). CONCLUSIONS: Use of "Duoderm®-bra" without intraoperative tissue expansion in NSM is a new technique. This technique improves nipple position with less ptosis and greater elevation, decreases flap and NAC necrosis complications, and does not increase total reconstructive period in NSM patients.

Dissociable roles for the basolateral amygdala and orbitofrontal cortex in decision-making under risk of punishment.

Several neuropsychiatric disorders are associated with abnormal decision-making involving risk of punishment, but the neural basis of this association remains poorly understood. Altered activity in brain systems including the basolateral amygdala (BLA) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) can accompany these same disorders, and these structures are implicated in some forms of decision-making. The current study investigated the role of the BLA and OFC in decision-making under risk of explicit punishment. Rats were trained in the risky decision-making task (RDT), in which they chose between two levers, one that delivered a small safe reward, and the other that delivered a large reward accompanied by varying risks of footshock punishment. Following training, they received sham or neurotoxic lesions of BLA or OFC, followed by RDT retesting. BLA lesions increased choice of the large risky reward (greater risk-taking) compared to both prelesion performance and sham controls. When reward magnitudes were equated, both BLA lesion and control groups shifted their choice to the safe (no shock) reward lever, indicating that the lesions did not impair punishment sensitivity. In contrast to BLA lesions, OFC lesions significantly decreased risk-taking compared with sham controls, but did not impair discrimination between different reward magnitudes or alter baseline levels of anxiety. Finally, neither lesion significantly affected food-motivated lever pressing under various fixed ratio schedules, indicating that lesion-induced alterations in risk-taking were not secondary to changes in appetitive motivation. Together, these findings indicate distinct roles for the BLA and OFC in decision-making under risk of explicit punishment.