Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeImmediate breast reconstruction (IBR) at the time of mastectomy is gaining popularity, as studies show no negative impact on recurrence or patient survival, but better aesthetic outcome, less psychological distress and lower treatment costs. Using the largest database available in Europe, the presented study compared outcomes and complications of IBR vs. delayed breast reconstruction (DBR).Methods3926 female patients underwent 4577 free DIEP-flap breast reconstructions after malignancies in 22 different German breast cancer centers. The cases were divided into two groups according to the time of reconstruction: an IBR and a DBR group. Surgical complications were accounted for and the groups were then compared.ResultsOverall, the rate of partial-(1.0 versus 1.2 percent of cases; p = 0.706) and total flap loss (2.3 versus 1.9 percent of cases; p = 0.516) showed no significant difference between the groups. The rate of revision surgery was slightly, but significantly lower in the IBR group (7.7 versus 9.8 percent; p = 0.039). Postoperative mobilization was commenced significantly earlier in the IBR group (mobilization on postoperative day 1: 82.1 versus 68.7 percent; p < 0.001), and concordantly the mean length of hospital stay was significantly shorter (7.3 (SD3.7) versus 8.9 (SD13.0) days; p < 0.001).ConclusionIBR is feasible and cannot be considered a risk factor for complications or flap outcome. Our results support the current trend towards an increasing number of IBR. Especially in times of economic pressure in health care, the importance of a decrease of hospitalization cannot be overemphasized.

Abstract BACKGROUND The use of a subdural drain (SDD) after burr-hole drainage of chronic subdural hematoma (cSDH) reduces recurrence at 6 mo. Subperiosteal drains (SPDs) are considered safer, since they are not positioned in direct contact to cortical structures, bridging veins, or hematoma membranes. OBJECTIVE To investigate whether the recurrence rate after insertion of a SPD is noninferior to the insertion of a more commonly used SDD. METHODS Multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial analyzing patients undergoing burr-hole drainage for cSDH aged 18 yr and older. After hematoma evacuation, patients were randomly assigned to receive either a SDD (SDD-group) or a SPD (SPD-group). The primary endpoint was recurrence indicating a reoperation within 12 mo, with a noninferiority margin of 3.5%. Secondary outcomes included clinical and radiological outcome, morbidity and mortality rates, and length of stay. RESULTS Of 220 randomized patients, all were included in the final analysis (120 SPD and 100 SDD). Recurrence rate was lower in the SPD group (8.33%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.28-14.72) than in the SDD group (12.00%, 95% CI 6.66-19.73), with the treatment difference (3.67%, 95% CI -12.6-5.3) not meeting predefined noninferiority criteria. The SPD group showed significantly lower rates of surgical infections (P = .0406) and iatrogenic morbidity through drain placement (P = .0184). Length of stay and mortality rates were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSION Although the noninferiority criteria were not met, SPD insertion led to lower recurrence rates, fewer surgical infections, and lower drain misplacement rates. These findings suggest that SPD may be warranted in routine clinical practice Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract

Background Although large series from national joint registries may accurately reflect indications for revision TKAs, they may lack the granularity to detect the true incidence and relative importance of such indications, especially periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). Questions/purposes Using a combination of individual chart review supplemented with New Zealand Joint Registry data, we asked: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of revision TKA? (2) What are the common indications for revising a contemporary primary TKA? (3) Do revision TKA indications differ at various followup times after primary TKA? Methods We identified 11,134 primary TKAs performed between 2000 and 2015 in three tertiary referral hospitals. The New Zealand Joint Registry and individual patient chart review were used to identify 357 patients undergoing subsequent revision surgery or any reoperation for PJI. All clinical records, radiographs, and laboratory results were reviewed to identify the primary revision reason. The cumulative incidence of each revision reason was calculated using a competing risk estimator. Results The cumulative incidence for revision TKA at 15 years followup was 6.1% (95% CI, 5.1%–7.1%). The two most-common revision reasons at 15 years followup were PJI followed by aseptic loosening. The risk of revision or reoperation for PJI was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.7%–2.3%) and aseptic loosening was 1.2% (95% CI, 0.7%–1.6%). Approximately half of the revision TKAs secondary to PJI occurred within 2 years of the index TKA (95% CI, 0.8%–1.2%), whereas half of the revision TKAs secondary to aseptic loosening occurred 8 years after the index TKA (95% CI, 0.4%–0.7%). Conclusions In this large cohort of patients with comprehensive followup of revision procedures, PJI was the dominant reason for failure during the first 15 years after primary TKA. Aseptic loosening became more important with longer followup. Efforts to improve outcome after primary TKA should focus on these areas, particularly prevention of PJI. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

BackgroundWhether one anastomosis gastric bypass (OAGB) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) is a better revisional bariatric surgery (RBS) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) is still under debate. The aim is to compare short-term outcomes of RYGB and OAGB as a RBS after SG, pertaining to their effects on weight loss, resolution of comorbidities, and complications.MethodsWe performed a single-center analysis of 55 patients (n = 34 OAGB, n = 21 RYGB). Indications for revisional surgery included weight regain/loss failure (67%) and intractable gastroesophageal reflux disease (33%). Data were collected up to 1-year follow-up (FU) and included time of revisional surgery, operation time, weight, body mass index, excess weight loss, and total weight loss (TWL), both in percent, complications and resolution of comorbidities.ResultsOperation time was 79 ± 36 (OAGB-MGB) and 98 ± 24 min (RYGB) (p = 0.03). In the first 30 postoperative days, three patients in the RYGB group, and no patient in the OAGB group, had postoperative complications. FU was 100%. Minor complication rates at 12 months were 33.3% (RYGB) and 35.3% (OAGB). At 12 months, mean % TWL was 10.3 ± 7.6% (RYGB) and 15.8 ± 7.8% (OAGB) (p = 0.0132).ConclusionsOAGB after failed SG was found to be a quicker procedure with less perioperative complications. At 1-year FU, no significant differences were seen between RYGB and OAGB regarding readmission and minor complications. Still long-term FU including the risk of malnutrition is needed to have a complete evaluation of OAGB as a RBS for the future.

BackgroundSleeve gastrectomy (SG) is the most common metabolic and bariatric surgical (MBS) procedure worldwide. Despite the desired effect of SG on weight loss and remission of obesity-associated medical problems, there are some concerns regarding the need to do revisional/conversional surgeries after SG. This study aims to make an algorithmic clinical approach based on an expert-modified Delphi consensus regarding redo-surgeries after SG, to give bariatric and metabolic surgeons a guideline that might help for the best clinical decision.MethodsForty-six recognized bariatric and metabolic surgeons from 25 different countries participated in this Delphi consensus study in two rounds to develop a consensus on redo-surgeries after SG. An agreement/disagreement ≥ 70.0% on statements was considered to indicate a consensus.ResultsConsensus was reached for 62 of 72 statements and experts did not achieve consensus on 10 statements after two rounds of online voting. Most of the experts believed that multi-disciplinary team evaluation should be done in all redo-procedures after SG and there should be at least 12 months of medical and supportive management before performing redo-surgeries after SG for insufficient weight loss, weight regain, and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Also, experts agreed that in case of symptomatic GERD in the presence of adequate weight loss, medical treatment for at least 1 to 2 years is an acceptable option and agreed that Roux-en Y gastric bypass is an appropriate option in this situation. There was disagreement consensus on efficacy of omentopexy in rotation and efficacy of fundoplication in the presence of a dilated fundus and GERD.ConclusionRedo-surgeries after SG is still an important issue among bariatric and metabolic surgeons. The proper time and procedure selection for redo-surgery need careful considerations. Although multi-disciplinary team evaluation plays a key role to evaluate best options in these situations, an algorithmic clinical approach based on the expert's consensus as a guideline can help for the best clinical decision-making.

Background Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) has become the most frequently performed bariatric procedure worldwide. De novo reflux might impact patients’ quality of life, requiring lifelong proton pump inhibitor medication. It also increases the risk of esophagitis and formation of Barrett’s metaplasia. Besides weight regain, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is the most common reason for conversion to Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Methods We performed 24-h pH metries, manometries, gastroscopies, and questionnaires focusing on reflux (GIQLI, RSI) in SG patients with a follow-up of more than 10 years who did not suffer from symptomatic reflux or hiatal hernia preoperatively. Results From a total of 53 patients, ten patients after adjustable gastric banding were excluded. From the remaining 43, six patients (14.0%) were converted to RYGB due to intractable reflux over a period of 130 months. Ten out of the remaining non-converted patients ( n  = 26) also suffered from symptomatic reflux. Gastroscopies revealed de novo hiatal hernias in 45% of the patients and Barrett’s metaplasia in 15%. SG patients suffering from symptomatic reflux scored significantly higher in the RSI ( p  = 0.04) and significantly lower in the GIQLI ( p  = 0.02) questionnaire. Conclusions This study shows a high incidence of Barrett’s esophagus and hiatal hernias at more than 10 years after SG. Its results therefore suggest maintaining pre-existing large hiatal hernia, GERD, and Barrett’s esophagus as relative contraindications to SG. The limitations of this study—its small sample size as well as the fact that it was based on early experience with SG—make drawing any general conclusions about this procedure difficult.

The two-stage revision strategy has been claimed as being the \"gold standard\" for treating prosthetic joint infection. The one-stage revision strategy remains an attractive alternative option; however, its effectiveness in comparison to the two-stage strategy remains uncertain. To compare the effectiveness of one- and two-stage revision strategies in treating prosthetic hip infection, using re-infection as an outcome. Systematic review and meta-analysis. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, manual search of bibliographies to March 2015, and email contact with investigators. Cohort studies (prospective or retrospective) conducted in generally unselected patients with prosthetic hip infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision. No clinical trials were identified. Data were extracted by two independent investigators and a consensus was reached with involvement of a third. Rates of re-infection from 38 one-stage studies (2,536 participants) and 60 two-stage studies (3,288 participants) were aggregated using random-effect models after arcsine transformation, and were grouped by study and population level characteristics. In one-stage studies, the rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 8.2% (6.0-10.8). The corresponding re-infection rate after two-stage revision was 7.9% (6.2-9.7). Re-infection rates remained generally similar when grouped by several study and population level characteristics. There was no strong evidence of publication bias among contributing studies. Evidence from aggregate published data suggest similar re-infection rates after one- or two-stage revision among unselected patients. More detailed analyses under a broader range of circumstances and exploration of other sources of heterogeneity will require collaborative pooling of individual participant data. PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015016559.

One-stage and two-stage revision strategies are the two main options for treating established chronic peri-prosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the hip; however, there is uncertainty regarding which is the best treatment option. We aimed to compare the risk of re-infection between the two revision strategies using pooled individual participant data (IPD). Observational cohort studies with PJI of the hip treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and reporting re-infection outcomes were retrieved by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; as well as email contact with investigators. We analysed IPD of 1856 participants with PJI of the hip from 44 cohorts across four continents. The primary outcome was re-infection (recurrence of infection by the same organism(s) and/or re-infection with a new organism(s)). Hazard ratios (HRs) for re-infection were calculated using Cox proportional frailty hazards models. After a median follow-up of 3.7 years, 222 re-infections were recorded. Reinfection rates per 1000 person-years of follow-up were 16.8 (95% CI 13.6-20.7) and 32.3 (95% CI 27.3-38.3) for onestage and two-stage strategies respectively. The age- and sex-adjusted HR of re-infection for two-stage revision was 1.70 (0.58-5.00) when compared with one-stage revision. The association remained consistently absent after further adjustment for potential confounders. The HRs did not vary importantly in clinically relevant subgroups. Analysis of pooled individual patient data suggest that a one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as a two-stage revision strategy in treating PJI of the hip.

This study aimed to make a meta-analysis regarding mid-long-term outcomes (≥ 3-year follow-up) after sleeve gastrectomy (SG), focusing on incidence, reasons, and results of revisional surgery. PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched and 32 studies were included. The overall revision rate was 10.4%, but for patients with ≥ 10-year follow-up, the rate was 22.6%. European studies had a higher revision rate (14.4%) than other studies. The most common reason for revision was failure in weight loss, and the most frequent revisional procedure was gastric bypass. Revisional surgery was favorable for weight reduction and comorbidity resolution. In conclusion, revision rate is not rare after SG, especially when looking at long-term follow-up. Bariatric surgeons and patients need to fully understand and deal with the need for revision after SG.

Background The surgical treatment of end-stage tibiotalar arthritis continues to be a controversial topic. Advances in surgical technique and implant design have lead to improved outcomes after both ankle arthrodesis (AA) and total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), yet a clear consensus regarding the most ideal form of treatment is lacking. In this study, the outcomes and complications following AA and TAA are compared in order to improve our understanding and decision-making for care and treatment of symptomatic tibiotalar arthritis. Methods Studies reporting on outcomes and complications following TAA or AA were obtained for review from the PubMed database between January 2006 and July 2016. Results from studies reporting on a minimum of 200 total ankle arthroplasties or a minimum of 80 ankle arthrodesis procedures were reviewed and pooled for analysis. All studies directly comparing outcomes and complications between TAA and AA were also included for review. Only studies including modern third-generation TAA implants approved for use in the USA (HINTEGRA, STAR, Salto, INBONE) were included. Results A total of six studies reporting on outcomes following TAA and five reporting on outcomes following AA met inclusion criteria and were included for pooled data analysis. The adjusted overall complication rate was higher for AA (26.9%) compared to TAA (19.7%), with similar findings in the non-revision reoperation rate (12.9% for AA compared to 9.5% for TAA). The adjusted revision reoperation rate for TAA (7.9%) was higher than AA (5.4%). Analysis of results from ten studies directly comparing TAA to AA suggests a more symmetric gait and less impairment on uneven surfaces after TAA. Conclusions Pooled data analysis demonstrated a higher overall complication rate after AA, but a higher reoperation rate for revision after TAA. Based on the existing literature, the decision to proceed with TAA or AA for end-stage ankle arthritis should be made on an individual patient basis.