Choroidal morphology and microvascular structure in eyes of patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus before and after ventriculo-peritoneal shunt surgery.

The present study aims to investigate the choroidal morphology and microvascular structure in eyes of patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH) compared with the eyes of healthy age-matched individuals, and to assess the choroidal structure in eyes of iNPH patients before and after shunt surgery using Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT). The primary objective was to assess the choroidal morphology in eyes of iNPH patients before and after ventriculo-peritoneal (VP) surgery compared to age and sex-matched healthy individuals. The secondary objective was to compare the choroidal morphology of iNPH patients before and after a mean of 56 days from shunt surgery. Eighteen consecutive patients diagnosed with iNPH and 18 healthy controls were prospectively recruited between November 2021 and October 2022. Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) with enhanced depth imaging (EDI) was conducted before and within 4 months after shunt surgery. Images were binarized using the ImageJ software, and the choroidal vascular index (CVI) was calculated. Sub-foveal choroidal thickness (SFCT), total choroidal area (TCA), luminal choroidal area (LCA), and stromal choroidal area (SCA) were significantly increased in iNPH patients before surgery compared to the control group (p < 0.05). SFCT, TCA, and SCA were significantly increased in iNPH patients after surgery compared to the control group (p < 0.05). There were no differences in the CVI between iNPH patients and controls. No statistical differences in the choroidal structure were observed before and after VP shunt surgery (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the choroid was thicker in iNPH patients before and after VP shunt compared to age-matched healthy individuals. However, there were no difference in the choroidal microstructure in the eyes of iNPH patients before and after a mean of 3 months from VP shunt surgery.

Medicolegal Implications of Biphasic Anaphylaxis.

ABSTRACT: Biphasic anaphylaxis is an uncommon IgE-mediated condition whose pathophysiological mechanisms, risk factors, and predictive signs are not properly understood. Fortunately, the lethality of biphasic anaphylaxis, although probably underestimated, is low. Preventive clinical measures for biphasic anaphylaxis are neither standardized nor commonly applied. Furthermore, there are no laboratory protocols or anaphylactic markers to help identify the onset of biphasic anaphylaxis in clinical settings. The aim of this review is to highlight the medicolegal difficulties facing coroners and forensic pathologists in terms of the diagnosis and assessment of harm for victims and survivors of biphasic anaphylaxis.

Determinants of surgeon choice in cases of suspected implant rupture following mastectomy or aesthetic breast surgery: Clinical implications.

Implant ruptures may be diagnosed by physical examination, ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The absence of standard guidelines to approach to implant ruptures may cause unnecessary surgical revisions in the absence of radiological confirmation of prosthetic damages.The purpose of this study was to analyze the diagnostic procedures applied to patients with suspected prosthetic rupture and surgeon choices to perform a revision or to plan a clinical and radiological follow-up.We conducted a retrospective study on 62 women submitted to revision surgery due to radiological diagnosis of suspected implant rupture, following mastectomy or aesthetic reconstruction, and admitted to a Plastic Surgery Department between 2008 and 2018.Seventy-three implants, believed to be ruptured, were explanted. One-third of these were intact and unnecessarily explanted. US associated with MRI evaluation resulted in the most helpful diagnostical method.A standardized clinical and radiological approach is essential to manage breast implant ruptures successfully. An innovative protocol is proposed in order to: ensure the appropriate management of implant ruptures and prevent unnecessary surgical revisions; reduce the risk of claims for medical malpractice in cases of unsatisfactory final aesthetic results or worse than before.