Outcomes of Deep Sclerectomy following Failed XEN Gel Stent Implantation in Open-Angle Glaucoma: A Prospective Study

Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the outcome of deep sclerectomy (DS) as a secondary procedure following failed ab-interno XEN gel stent implantation in patients with open-angle glaucoma. Methods: Prospective, single-center, non-randomized, interventional study. Consecutive eyes that underwent mitomycin C (MMC) augmented XEN gel stent surgery, with uncontrolled intraocular pressure (IOP) or signs of disease progression, were included to undergo MMC-augmented DS. Primary efficacy outcome was surgical success, defined as complete when the unmedicated IOP was 12 mmHg or less, or 15 mmHg or less and 20% lower than at the timing of XEN failure and defined as qualified when the IOP fulfilled the same conditions with fewer medications than before deep sclerectomy. Secondary measures were mean reduction in IOP and in the number of medications, and the rates of complications. Results: Seventeen eyes were enrolled with a mean age of 72.1 ± 8.2 years (66.7% women). The mean follow-up was 20.1 ± 4.9 months, with more than 12-month data available from 15 eyes. Following DS, IOP decreased significantly from 22.6 ± 5.3 mmHg to 12.3 ± 5.5 (45.6%; p < 0.001). Antiglaucoma medications dropped from 1.1 ± 0.9 to 0.3 ± 0.7. Complete success was obtained in 40% of eyes using the threshold of 12 mmHg or less and a 20% decrease of IOP, and in 60% using the 15 mmHg or less threshold. Adverse events were observed in 20% of eyes (bleb leakage (13.3%); hypotony (6.7%)). No cases of choroidal detachment or hypotony maculopathy were reported. Conclusions: Failed XEN gel stent implantation does not seem to negatively affect the safety and efficacy of subsequent deep sclerectomy surgery.

Revision Facelift and Neck Lift

Facial rejuvenation procedures have become more commonly performed due to an increasing elderly population and greater general public acceptance. As a result, patients are now increasingly undergoing secondary and tertiary rhytidectomies to treat natural aging and/or to correct complications from prior procedures. Revision face and neck lifts are more complex by nature of the procedure and require a comprehensive preoperative assessment for enhanced outcomes. In this review, we discuss the preoperative evaluation, surgical challenges encountered, primary face and neck lift deformities, and their surgical management for patients undergoing secondary face and neck lifts.

Characteristics of Secondary Procedures following Digit and Hand Replantation

Introduction Secondary procedures following digit and hand replants are often necessary to optimize functional outcomes. To date, the incidence and characteristics of secondary procedures have yet to be fully defined. Materials and Methods A literature search was performed using the NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) database for studies evaluating secondary procedures following digit and hand replantation/revascularization. Studies were evaluated for frequency and type of secondary procedure following replantation. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted across the pooled dataset. Results Nineteen studies representing 1,485 replants were included in our analysis. A total of 1,124 secondary procedures were performed on the 1,485 replants. Secondary procedures most commonly addressed tendons (27.1%), bone/joints (16.1%), soft tissue coverage (15.4%), nerve (5.4%), and scar contractures (4.5%). A total of 12.7% of replants resulted in re-amputation (16.7% of secondary procedures). The details of secondary procedures are further described in the article. Conclusion Secondary procedures are often necessary following hand and digit replants. Patients should be informed of the possible need for subsequent surgery, including delayed amputation, to improve hand function. These data improve our understanding of replant outcomes and can help patients better comprehend the decision to undergo replantation.

Clinical trial outcomes of high- and extra high-profile breast implants

BACKGROUND

Clinical data concerning potential risks and benefits associated with the use of high- and extra high-profile breast implants are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The authors assess the risk of adverse events (AE) with high- and extra high-profile breast implants compared with low- to moderate-profile breast implants in patients enrolled in long-term clinical studies.

METHODS

Relative risks (RR) of capsular contracture (CC), moderate to severe malposition, and secondary procedure were calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusting for patient, procedure, and device characteristics among patients enrolled in the primary augmentation cohorts of the Core (NCT00689871; round, silicone-filled implants) and 410 (NCT00690339; shaped, highly cohesive silicone-filled implants) clinical studies. Study pooling provided comparisons of implant shape and fill, as well as contributed to relative outcome. Analyses were also stratified by preoperative breast measures.

RESULTS

In the Core study (N = 454; 907 implants; mean follow-up 7.2 years; 3669 person-years), and the combined Core and 410 studies (N = 4412; 8811 implants; mean follow-up 3.0 years; 14 528 person-years), risk of CC, secondary procedures, and mastopexy as a secondary procedure were reduced in high-profile versus low- to moderate-profile breast implants (P < .05). The risk of moderate to severe malposition was not significantly different between high-profile and low- to moderate-profile breast implants in the Core or combined studies (RR, 0.58 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.22-1.51] and RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.31-1.70], respectively). Analyses stratified by preoperative breast measures did not indicate higher risk of CC, malposition, or secondary procedure among patients with either smaller (<17 cm) or larger (≥17 cm) preoperative measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Among primary augmentation patients with round, silicone-filled, or shaped, highly cohesive silicone-filled implants, high- and extra high-profile implants were associated with lower risks of CC, secondary procedures, and mastopexy and were not associated with greater risks of moderate to severe malposition versus low- to moderate-profile implants.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.