How Should We Investigate Breast Implant Rupture?

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.     

Augmentation Mammaplasty: Where Should the Implant Be Placed?

Malposition of the prosthesis is one complication of augmentation mammaplasty. The most projected point of the prosthesis should be placed just behind the nipple to create a natural-looking breast. However, in some cases, when a textured surface cohesive silicone gel prosthesis with an inframammary approach is used, low displacement of the prosthesis is encountered within 1 year. This phenomenon can be seen both in subpectoral augmentation with severing of the muscle at the level of the inframammary fold and in subglandular augmentation when the patients breast and skin are very soft and easily stretchable. Therefore, the elasticity of the breast should be evaluated before surgery. If the patients breast and skin are very soft and easily stretchable, the pocket for the prosthesis should be created 1 to 1.5 cm superiorly to the usual pocket for the prosthesis. The design of the pocket for the prosthesis should be different depending on the shape of the prosthesis and the elasticity of the patients breasts.     

End-Stage Hallux Rigidus: Cheilectomy,Implant, or Arthrodesis?

End-stage arthritis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) typically results in anexophytic process with marked limitation of motion. Pain may occur from the degenerative process itself and/or the bone spur formation that may become directly inflamed from shoe gear. The best surgical treatment for end-stage arthrosis of the big toe joint continues to be a controversial topic despite hallux rigidus being recognized clinically for more than 100 years. Although joint-sparing procedures are considered, arthrodesis is recommended, as this procedure is definitive and produces predictable results.     

Can Implant Retention be Recommended for Treatment of Infected TKA?

Background  

Retention treatment is reportedly associated with lower infection control rates than two-stage revision. However, the studies on which this presumption are based depend on comparisons of historical rather than concurrent controls.     

What Are the Indications for Implant Revision in Three-component Total Ankle Arthroplasty?

BackgroundGiven the increasing usage of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), a better understanding of the reasons leading to implant revision and the factors that might influence those indications is necessary to identify at-risk patients.Question/purposesUsing a single-design three-component ankle prosthesis, we asked: (1) What is the cumulative incidence of implant revision at 5 and 10 years? (2) What are the indications for implant revision in our population? (3) What factors are associated with an increased likelihood of implant revision during the time frame in question?MethodsBetween 2003 and 2017, primary TAA using a single-design three-component ankle implant was performed by or under the supervision of the implant designer in 1006 patients (1074 ankles) aged between 17 and 88 years to treat end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. No other TAA systems were used during the study period at the investigators’ institution. In 68 patients with bilateral surgery, only the first TAA was considered. Of the patients treated with the study implant, 2% (16 of 1006) were lost to follow-up 5 to 14 years after TAA and were not known to have died or undergone revision, and 5% (55 of 1006) were deceased due to reasons unrelated to the procedure, leaving 935 patients for evaluation in this retrospective study. The mean (range) follow-up for the included patients was 8.8 ± 4.2 (0.2 to 16.8) years. Implant revision was performed 0.5 to 13.2 years after TAA in 12% (121 of 1006) of our patients. Survivorship free from revision was calculated using cumulative incidence (competing risks) survivorship, with death as a competing risk. The reason for each revision was classified into one of six categories according to a modified version of a previously published protocol: aseptic loosening, cyst formation, instability, deep infection, technical error, and pain without another cause. Two foot and ankle surgeons reviewed the records of all patients who underwent implant revision and assigned each patient’s reason for revision to one of the six categories. The decision for assigning each patient to one of the six categories was made based on a consensus agreement. A subgroup classification of preoperative ankle alignment (neutral, mild, and major deformity) and variables of age, sex, BMI, etiology of ankle osteoarthritis, and number of preoperative and intraoperative hindfoot or midfoot procedures were used in a multinomial logistic regression and Cox regression analysis to estimate their association with reason for revision and implant survival until revision.ResultsThe cumulative incidence of implant revision at the mean (range) follow-up time of 8.8 ± 4.2 years (0.2 to 16.8) was 9.8% (95% confidence interval 7.7% to 11.8%). Five and 10 years after TAA, cumulative incidence was 4.8% (95% CI 3.4 to 6.1) and 12.1% (95% CI 9.7% to 14.5%), respectively. The most common reason for revision was instability (34% [41 of 121]), followed by aseptic loosening of one or more metallic components (28% [34 of 121]), pain without another cause (12% [14 of 121]), cyst formation (10% [12 of 121]), deep infection (9% [11 of 121]), and technical error (7% [9 of 121]). Ankles with a major hindfoot deformity before TAA were more likely to undergo revision than ankles with a minor deformity (hazard ratio 1.9 [95% CI 1.2 to 3.0]; p = 0.007) or neutral alignment (HR 2.5 [95% CI 1.5 to 4.4]; p = 0.001). A preoperative hindfoot valgus deformity increased revision probability compared with a varus deformity (HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.4 to 3.4]; p = 0.001).ConclusionInstability was a more common reason for implant revision after TAA with this three-component design than previously reported. All causes inducing either a varus or valgus hindfoot deformity must be meticulously addressed during TAA to prevent revision of this implant. Future studies from surgeons/institutions not involved in this implant design are needed to confirm these findings and to further investigate why a substantial number of patients had pain of unknown cause prompting revision.Level of EvidenceLevel III, therapeutic study.     

Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) breast implants: Our experience

IntroductionThis study describes our experience on the management of patients with PIP (Poly Implant Prothèse) breast implants between 2000 and 2008.Materials and methodsThe medical records of patients were reviewed. Data was collected on clinical presentation, investigations, management and outcome.Results44 patients, with bilateral breast implants, and a median age of 33 years (18–54 years), were reviewed, and of these, 31 patients were asymptomatic. Symptoms at presentation included lymphadenopathy, capsule formation, breast lump, seroma and breast pain. Patients underwent mammography, ultrasound and MRI scanning of the breasts as part of the imaging investigations.5 patients declined explantation. Reasons for explantation included patient anxiety, silent rupture, aesthetic breast change, palpable nodes and breast lump.17 out of a total of 78 implants (21.8%) were noted to have ruptured; 2 had a simple tear and 15 were totally disintegrated. 1 patient underwent removal of the implants, 18 underwent exchange of implants, and 20 patients had a capsulotomy and exchange of implants. Postoperative complications included wound infection, seroma, axillary lymphadenopathy, hypersensitive scar and overgranulation of the wound.ConclusionOur series confirms the high rate of PIP implant rupture (21.8%), the majority of which were asymptomatic. The main reasons for explantation were patient anxiety and silent rupture of implants. It is imperative that patients should be appropriately counselled, prior to surgery with regards to removal of the implants, given the increased rupture rates noted.     

Is Unilateral Implant or Autologous Breast Reconstruction Better in Obtaining Breast Symmetry?

Unilateral breast reconstruction poses a special set of challenges to the reconstructive breast surgeon compared to bilateral reconstructions. No studies to date provide an objective comparison between autologous and implant based reconstructions in matching the contralateral breast. This study compares the quantitative postoperative results between unilateral implant and autologous flap reconstructions in matching the native breast in shape, size, and projection using three‐dimensional (3D) imaging. Sixty‐four patients who underwent unilateral mastectomy with tissue expander (TE)‐implant (n = 34) or autologous microvascular free transverse rectus abdominus myocutaneous (TRAM; n = 18) or deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP; n = 12) flap (n = 30) reconstruction from 2007 to 2010 were analyzed. Key patient demographics and risk factors were collected. Using 3D scans of patients obtained during pre and postoperative visits including over 1 year follow‐ups for both groups, 3D models were constructed and analyzed for total breast volume, anterior‐posterior projection from the chest wall, and 3D comparison. No significant differences in mean age, body mass index, or total number of reconstructive surgeries were observed between the two groups (TE‐implant: 52.2 ± 10, 23.9 ± 3.7, 3 ± 0.9; autologous: 50.7 ± 9.4, 25.4 ± 3.9, 2.9 ± 1.3; p > 0.05). The total volume difference between the reconstructed and contralateral breasts in the TE‐implant group was insignificant: 27.1 ± 22.2 cc, similar to the autologous group: 29.5 ± 24.7 cc, as was the variance of breast volume from the mean. In both groups, the reconstructed breast had a larger volume. A‐P projections were similar between the contralateral and the reconstructed breasts in the TE‐implant group: 72.5 ± 3.21 mm versus 71.7 ± 3.5 mm (p > 0.05). The autologous reconstructed breast had statistically insignificant but less A‐P projection compared to the contralateral breast (81.9 ± 16.1 mm versus 61.5 ± 9.5 mm; p > 0.05). Variance of A‐P projection from the mean was additionally insignificant between the contralateral and reconstructed breasts. Both groups produced similar asymmetry scores based on global 3D comparison (TE‐implant: 2.24 ± 0.3 mm; autologous: 1.96 ± 0.2 mm; p > 0.05). Lastly, when the autologous group was further subdivided into TRAM and DIEP cohorts, no significant differences in breast volume, A‐P projection or symmetry existed. Using 3D imaging, we demonstrate that both TE‐implant and autologous reconstruction can achieve symmetrical surgical results with the same number of operations. This study demonstrates that breast symmetry, while an important consideration in the breast reconstruction algorithm, should not be the sole consideration in a patient’ decision to proceed with autologous versus TE‐implant reconstruction.     

Which Radiographic Parameters Are Linked to Failure of a Dynamic Spinal Implant?

Background  

Knowledge about factors leading to failure of posterior dynamic stabilization implants is essential to design future implants and establish surgical indications. Therefore, we analyzed an implant for single-level or hybrid configuration (adjacent to spondylodesis), which was recalled due to high failure rates.     

Is a Titanium Implant for Total Knee Arthroplasty Better? A Randomized Controlled Study

BackgroundLighter weight and lower modulus are potential advantages of titanium (Ti) implants over cobalt chrome (CoCr) implants in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study was conducted to determine whether Ti implants in TKA resulted in better clinical outcomes and radiologic results.MethodsOne hundred and eight patients (216 knees) with knee arthritis warranting bilateral primary TKA were randomly allocated to undergo Ti rotating-platform TKA in one knee and CoCr rotating-platform TKA in the contralateral knee. The mean follow-up period was 5.3 years (range, 1-7 years). The weight of Ti implants was one-third lighter than that of CoCr implants (133.9 g vs 390.1 g, P < .01). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using clinical scores, patient preferences (lightness, comfort, naturalness, and satisfaction), gait analysis (kinetic and kinematic data), range of motion, and degree of pain. Radiologic results were evaluated based on the radiolucent line (RLL), degree of medial tibial bone loss, and loosening as seen on X-ray.ResultsNo significant differences were observed in clinical scores or patient preference. Regarding implant weight, approximately 70% of patients did not perceive the Ti implant as lighter. No significant differences were observed in gait analysis, range of motion, or degree of pain. The RLL was seen in 9% of the Ti implant group and 19% of the CoCr implant group.ConclusionThe lighter Ti implant did not show any clinical benefit over CoCr implants. The lightness of the Ti implant is not sufficient to matter or be noticeable. However, the Ti implant showed lower rate of RLL than the CoCr implant.Level of Evidencelevel I, randomized controlled trial.     

Bicruciate-retaining Total Knee Replacement Provides Satisfactory Function and Implant Survivorship at 23?Years

Background

One of the goals of a TKA is to approximate the function of a normal knee. Preserving the natural ligaments might provide a method of restoring close to normal function. Sacrifice of the ACL is common and practical during a TKA. However, this ligament is functional in more than 60% of patients undergoing a TKA and kinematic studies support the concept of bicruciate-retaining (that is, ACL-preserving) TKA; however, relatively few studies have evaluated patients treated with bicruciate-retaining TKA implants.

Questions/purposes

I asked: (1) what is the long-term (minimum 20-year) survivorship, (2) what are the functional results, and (3) what are the reasons for revision of bicruciate-retaining knee arthroplasty prostheses?

Methods

From January 1989 to September 1992, I performed 639 total knee replacements in 537 patients. Of these, 489 were performed in 390 patients using a bicruciate-retaining, minimally constrained device. During the period in question, this knee prosthesis was used for all patients observed intraoperatively to have an intact, functional ACL with between 15° varus and 15° valgus joint deformity. There were 234 women and 156 men with a mean age at surgery of 65 years (range, 42–84 years) and a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis in 89%. The patella was resurfaced in all knees. The mean followup was 23 years (range, 20–24 years). At the time of this review, 199 (51%) patients had died and 31 (8%) patients were lost to followup, leaving 160 (41%) patients (214 knees) available for review. Component survivorship was determined by competing-risks analysis and Kaplan Meier survivorship analysis with revision for any reason as the primary endpoint. Patients were evaluated every 2 years to assess ROM, joint laxity, knee stability, and to determine American Knee Society scores.

Results

The Kaplan-Meier survivorship was 89% (95% CI, 82%–93%) at 23 years with revision for any reason as the endpoint. Competing-risks survivorship was 94% (95% CI, 91%%–96 %) at 23 years. At followup, the mean age of the patients was 84 years (range, 63–101 years), the mean flexion was 117° (range, 90°–130°), the mean American Knee Society score improved from a preoperative mean of 42 (range, 26–49) to 91 (range, 61–100; p < .001). Twenty-two knees in 21 patients (5.6%) were revised, most commonly because of polyethylene wear.

Conclusions

ACL sacrifice may be an unnecessary concession during TKA. This study found satisfactory survivorship and function after more than 20 years of use for patients receiving a bicruciate-retaining TKA implant. A TKA that preserves cruciate ligaments provides a stable, well-functioning knee with a low likelihood of revision at long-term followup. Retaining both cruciate ligaments during knee arthroplasty is an attractive concept that is worth considering.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.     

Effectiveness of Collagen–Gentamicin Implant for Treatment of “Dirty” Abdominal Wounds

p < 0.01) and shortens healing time (p < 0.001) and the period of disability.     

Radiotherapy and Immediate Expander/Implant Breast Reconstruction: Should Reconstruction be Delayed?

Chest wall irradiation is very common for mastectomy patients that have opted for immediate breast reconstruction. We reviewed a 6 year experience with tissue expander implant reconstruction with and without radiotherapy in 97 patients. All patients were evaluated with respect to aesthetic outcome, infection, implant exposure, capsular contracture, displacement and failure of the reconstruction; more than 50% of our irradiated patients resulted in a complication. The findings of this study demonstrate that the rate of complications and the rate of patients requiring corrective surgeries in irradiated patients is significant in early follow up.