Distribution of pathogens and risk factors for post-replantation wound infection in patients with traumatic major limb mutilation.

PURPOSE: Even though replantation of limb mutilation is increasing, postoperative wound infection can result in increasing the financial and psychological burden of patients. Here, we sought to explore the distribution of pathogens and identify risk factors for postoperative wound infection to help early identification and managements of high-risk patients. METHODS: Adult inpatients with severed traumatic major limb mutilation who underwent replantation from Suzhou Ruixing Medical Group between November 09, 2014, and September 6, 2022 were included in this retrospective study. Demographic, and clinical characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were collected. Data were used to analyze risk factors for postoperative wound infection. RESULTS: Among the 249 patients, 185 (74.3%) were males, the median age was 47.0 years old. Postoperative wound infection in 74 (29.7%) patients, of whom 51 (20.5%) had infection with multi-drug resistant bacteria. Ischemia time (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13-1.53, P = 0.001), wound contamination (OR 6.01, 95% CI 2.38-15.19, P <0.001), and stress hyperglycemia (OR 23.37, 95% CI 2.30-236.93, P = 0.008) were independent risk factors, while the albumin level after surgery (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, P = 0.031) was significant associated with the decrease of postoperative wound infection. Ischemia time (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.40, P = 0.010), wound contamination (OR 8.63, 95% CI 2.91-25.57, P <0.001), and MESS (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.02-1.71, P = 0.037 were independent risk factors for multi-drug resistant bacteria infection. CONCLUSIONS: Post-replantation wound infection was common in patients with severe traumatic major limb mutilation, and most were multi-drug resistant bacteria. Ischemia time and wound contamination were associated with the increase of postoperative wound infection, including caused by multi-drug resistant. Positive correction of hypoproteinemia and control of stress hyperglycemia may be beneficial.

Evaluation of time to reimplantation as a risk factor in two-stage revision with static spacers for periprosthetic knee joint infection.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the time to reimplantation (TTR) during two-stage revision using static spacers with regard to treatment success and function in patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee. METHODS: 163 patients (median age 72 years, 72 women) who underwent two-stage exchange for chronic knee PJI between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (based on the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria). A cutoff TTR for increased risk of reinfection was identified using the maximally selected log-rank statistic. Infection control, aseptic revisions and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Adjustment for confounding factors-the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and C-reactive protein (CRP)-was done with a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: When TTR exceeded 94 days, the adjusted hazard of reinfection was increased 2.8-fold (95% CI 1.4-5.7; p = 0.0036). The reinfection-free rate was 67% (95% CI 52-79%) after 2 years and 33% (95% CI 11-57%) after 5 years for a longer TTR compared to 89% (95% CI 81-94%) and 80% (95% CI 69-87%) at 2 and 5 years, respectively, for a shorter TTR. Adjusted overall survival and number of aseptic revisions did not differ between the longer TTR and shorter TTR groups. Maximum knee flexion was 90° (IQR 84-100) for a longer TTR and 95° (IQR 90-100) for a shorter TTR (p = 0.0431), with no difference between the groups in Oxford Knee Score. Baseline characteristics were similar (body mass index, age, previous surgeries, microorganisms) for the two groups, except that there was a higher CCI (median 4 vs. 3) and higher CRP (median 3.7 vs 2.6 mg/dl) in the longer TTR group. CONCLUSION: A long TTR is sometimes unavoidable in clinical practice, but surgeons should be aware of a potentially higher risk of reinfection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative study.

Is a severe preoperative condition a contraindication for aortic valve-sparing reimplantation in type A aortic dissection?

BACKGROUND: Type A aortic dissection (TAAD) surgical management is still under debate. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility and safety of the aortic valve-sparing root reconstruction (AVSR) procedure in 92 consecutive patients operated for TAAD, even when preoperative condition was severe (malperfusion, shock or both). METHODS: Our hospital database was reviewed to identify all patients who underwent an AVSR procedure for TAAD over 14 years. From May 2000 to June 2014, 92 consecutive patients were studied regarding to their preoperative condition. RESULTS: Age (61±13 years) and logistic Euroscore (23.4±15.3%) as well as cross-clamping (113±39 min), cardiopulmonary bypass (142±49 min) and circulatory arrest (22±13 min) times were collected. Hospital mortality was 16.3%. Mean follow-up was complete for a mean period of 27.6 months. One patient had early reoperation for aortic insufficiency. Actuarial survival at 1 year was 82.5%. The analysis of each group showed comparable mortality and morbidity in between patients. CONCLUSIONS: Based upon our experience in the management of TAAD, a reimplantation procedure could be performed regardless preoperative malperfusion or shock, with an acceptable postoperative over mortality or morbidity. A word of caution should be brought to patients over 70 years old.

Inactivation and replantation of the knee joint: an infeasible surgical method.

BACKGROUND: The inactivation and replantation of autologous tumor bones are important surgical methods for limb salvage in patients with malignancies. Currently, there are few reports on the inactivation and replantation of the knee joint. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of our surgical approach. METHODS: This is a retrospective case series study. We retrospectively collected the clinical data of patients with sarcoma treated with knee joint inactivation and replantation and analyzed the efficacy of this surgical method. The bone healing and complications in these patients after inactivated autograft replantation were assessed. RESULTS: This study included 16 patients. Fifteen patients had osteosarcoma, and one had Ewing's sarcoma. The average length of the inactivated bone is 20.2 cm (range 13.5-25.3 cm). All the patients underwent internal plate fixation. The average follow-up duration was 30 months (range 8-60 months). Before the data deadline of this study, eight (50%) patients were still alive, and eight (50%) died of sarcoma metastasis. Eight (50%) patients achieved bone healing at the diaphysis site of the inactivated tumor bone, with an average bone healing time of 21.9 months (range, 12-36 months). Five (31%) patients died due to metastases and did not achieve bone healing. Two (12.5%) patients did not achieve bone healing because of infection, and one (6.3%) patient underwent amputation due to tumor recurrence. Ten (62.5%) patients experienced fractures around the joint ends of the inactivated replanted bone, and eight of these ten patients were combined with joint dislocation. CONCLUSION: The incidence of joint deformities after the knee-joint inactivation and replantation is extremely high and is not recommended for use.

Insertion of a second electrode array-a rare complication of CI reimplantation.

Due to a technical defect or a medical indication, it may be necessary to explant a cochlear implant. This case report shows that there is the risk of encountering a nonremovable electrode array-as described here from the scala tympani-during cochlear reimplantation. In the present case, insertion of a second electrode array into the free and nonobstructed scala vestibuli was successful. Nonetheless, the indication for reimplantation must be carefully considered, especially in patients with tolerable limitations with little or no loss of speech understanding. Furthermore, surgery should not be performed solely because an implant upgrade is desired.

[Insertion of a second electrode array-a rare complication of CI reimplantation. German version]. / Insertion eines zweiten Elektrodenträgers ­ eine seltene Komplikation bei CI-Reimplantation.

Due to a technical defect or a medical indication, it may be necessary to explant a cochlear implant. This case report shows that there is the risk of encountering a nonremovable electrode array-as described here from the scala tympani-during cochlear reimplantation. In the present case, insertion of a second electrode array into the free and nonobstructed scala vestibuli was successful. Nonetheless, the indication for reimplantation must be carefully considered, especially in patients with tolerable limitations with little or no loss of speech understanding. Furthermore, surgery should not be performed solely because an implant upgrade is desired.

Renal Artery Reimplantation Versus Bypass in Elective Open Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND: Complex open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair often necessitates revascularization of renal arteries by either renal artery reimplantation or bypass. This study aims to evaluate the perioperative and short term outcomes between these 2 strategies of renal artery revascularization. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent open AAA repair from 2004 to 2020 at our own institution. Patients who underwent elective suprarenal, juxtarenal, or type 4 thoracoabdominal aneurysm repair were identified using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and a retrospectively maintained database of AAA patients. Patients who had symptomatic aneurysm or significant renal artery stenosis before AAA repair were excluded. Patient demographics, intraoperative conditions, renal function, bypass patency, and perioperative and postoperative outcomes at 30 days and 1 year were compared. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients underwent either renal artery reimplantation (n = 86) or bypass (n = 57) during this time period. The mean age was 69.7 years and 76.2% of the patients were male. Median preoperative creatinine was 1.2 mg/dL for the renal bypass group versus 1.06 mg/dL for reimplantation (P = 0.088). Both groups had similar median preoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of >60 mL/min (P = 0.13). Bypass and reimplantation groups had similar perioperative complications including acute kidney injury (51.8% vs. 49.4% P = 0.78), inpatient dialysis (3.6% vs. 1.2% P = 0.56), myocardial infarction (1.8% vs. 2.4% P = 0.99), and death (3.5% vs. 4.7% P = 0.99), respectively. During the 30-day follow-up period, renal artery stenosis was identified in 9.8% of bypasses and 6.7% of reimplantations (P = 0.71). Six point one percent of patients in the bypass group had renal failure requiring dialysis (both acute and permanent) compared to 1.3% in reimplantation group (P = 0.3). For those who had 1-year follow-up, the reimplantation group had higher new incidence of renal artery stenosis compared to bypass group (6 vs. 0 P = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Given that there is no significant difference in outcomes between renal artery reimplantation and bypass within 30 days or at 1-year follow-up, both bypass and reimplantation are acceptable means for renal artery revascularization during elective AAA repair.

Outcomes of aortic root replacement with tricuspid aortic valve reimplantation in patients with residual aortic regurgitation.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize residual aortic regurgitation (AR), identify its risk factors, and evaluate outcomes following aortic root replacement with aortic valve reimplantation. METHODS: From 2002 to 2020, 756 patients with a tricuspid aortic valve underwent elective reimplantation for aortic root aneurysm. AR on transthoracic echocardiograms before hospital discharge was graded as mild or greater. Machine learning was used to identify risk factors for residual AR and subsequent aortic valve reoperation. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (8.6%) had mild (58 [7.7%]) or moderate (7 [0.93%]) residual postoperative AR. They had more severe preoperative AR (38% vs 12%; P < .0001), thickened cusps (7.7% vs 2.2%; P = .008), aortic valve repair (38% vs 23%; P = .004), and multiple returns to cardiopulmonary bypass for additional repair (11% vs 3.3%; P = .003) than those without AR. Predictors of residual AR were severe preoperative AR, smaller aortic root graft, and concomitant cusp repair. At 10 years, patients with versus without residual AR had more moderate or severe AR (48% vs 7.0%; P < .0001) and freedom from reoperation was worse (89% vs 98%; P < .0001). Residual AR was a risk factor for early reoperation. Concomitant coronary bypass, lower body mass index, and lower ejection fraction were risk factors for late reoperation. Ten-year survival was similar among patients with and without residual AR (97% vs 93%; P = .43). CONCLUSIONS: Residual AR after elective reimplantation of a tricuspid aortic valve for aortic root aneurysm is uncommon. Patients with severe preoperative AR and those who undergo valve repair have higher risk for residual AR, which can progress and increase risk of aortic valve reoperation.

Evaluating the safety of same-day discharge following pediatric pyeloplasty and ureteral reimplantation; A NSQIP analysis 2012-2020.

INTRODUCTION: Same-day discharge (SDD) is a safe option for several adult urologic surgeries, benefiting patients and hospitals. By decreasing length of stay while maintaining patient safety, SDD is in-line with recent goals to provide high value care while minimizing costs. Literature on SDD in the pediatric population, however, is scarce, and no study has identified the efficacy of SDD for pediatric pyeloplasty (PP) and ureteral reimplantation (UR). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify trends in the usage of SDD as well as its efficacy and safety based on surgical outcomes for pediatric PP and UR. STUDY DESIGN: The 2012-2020 files of the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Project pediatric database were queried for PP and UR. Patients were stratified as SDD or standard-length discharge (SLD). Trends in SDD usage, differences in baseline characteristics, surgical approach, and surgical outcomes including 30-day readmission, complication, and reoperation rates were analyzed between SDD and SLD groups. RESULTS: 8213 PP (SDD: 202 [2.46%]) and 10,866 UR (469 [4.32%]) were included in analysis. There were no significant changes in SDD rates between 2012 and 2020, averaging 2.39% (PP), and 4.39% (UR). For both procedures, SDD was associated with higher rates of open versus minimally invasive (MIS) surgical approach and with shorter operative and anesthesia durations. For PP, there were no differences in readmission, complication, or reoperation rates in the SDD group. For UR, there was a 1.69% increase in CD I/II complications in those receiving SDD, correlating to 1.96-fold higher odds of CD I/II in all SDD patients compared to SLD patients. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that while the rate of SDD has not increased in recent years, the current screening methods for SDD have been generally effective in maintaining the safety of SDD for pediatric procedures. Though SDD for UR did show a very small increase in minor complications, this may be due to less strict screening protocols, and may be alleviated via MIS surgical approach. While this is the first paper to investigate SDD for pediatric urology procedures, these results are similar to those found for adult procedures. This study is limited by the lack of clinical data reported in the database. CONCLUSION: SDD is a generally safe option for pediatric PP and UR, and further research should identify proper screening protocols to continue to allow for safe SDD.

Long term results of non-refluxing ureteral reimplantation in the pediatric population.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term results of UR and to determine the difference between patients with VUR and OMU in terms of re-obstruction rate, complications associated with pregnancy, and de novo reflux. METHODS: Two-site retrospective study with 69 patients (36 females and 33 males) with a mean age of 5 ± 3.4 years. Fifty-nine (85.5%) underwent UR due to VUR and 10 (14.5%) due to OMU. Mean length of surgery and hospitalization was 90 ± 29.2 min and 9 ± 2.4 days, respectively. RESULTS: Eight (13.5%) patients with VUR suffered from febrile UTI with a mean of 2.1 ± 1.3 events. In the OMU group, 1 (10%) patient suffered from febrile UTI. None of the patients showed recurrence, obstruction or de novo VUR. Two patients (20%) with OMU suffered from CKD. In the VUR group, 3 (5.1%) patients suffered from CKD. Three women suffered from UTIs during pregnancy. Mean follow-up was 17.5 ± 4.6 years. CONCLUSIONS: Successful UR is associated with a decreased rate of febrile UTI in patients with VUR. Patients with OMU maintained and improved renal function in the long term. None demonstrated technical failures in the long term. Patients who presented with bilateral VUR are more prone to developing major complications.

Utility of Diagnostic Tests Before Reimplantation in Patients Undergoing 2-Stage Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), with treatment failure occurring in 12% to 28% after 2-stage revision. It is vital to identify diagnostic tools indicative of persistent infection or treatment failure after 2-stage revision for PJI. METHODS: The Cochrane Library, PubMed (MEDLINE), and EMBASE were searched for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies published before October 3, 2021, which evaluated the utility of serum/plasma biomarkers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP], interleukin-6 [IL-6], fibrinogen, D-dimer), synovial biomarkers (white blood cell [WBC] count, neutrophil percentage [PMN %], alpha-defensin [AD], leukocyte esterase [LE]), tissue frozen section, tissue culture, synovial fluid culture, or sonicated spacer fluid culture indicative of persistent infection before the second stage of 2-stage revision for PJI or treatment failure after 2-stage revision for PJI. RESULTS: A total of 47 studies including 6,605 diagnostic tests among 3,781 2-stage revisions for PJI were analyzed. Among those cases, 723 (19.1%) experienced persistent infection or treatment failure. Synovial LE (sensitivity 0.25 [0.10-0.47], specificity 0.99 [0.93-1.00], positive likelihood ratio 14.0 [1.45-135.58]) and serum IL-6 (sensitivity 0.52 [0.33-0.70], specificity 0.92 [0.85-0.96], positive likelihood ratio 7.90 [0.86-72.61]) had the highest diagnostic accuracy. However, no biomarker was associated with a clinically useful negative likelihood ratio. In subgroup analysis, synovial PMN %, synovial fluid culture, serum ESR, and serum CRP had limited utility for detecting persistent infection before reimplantation (positive likelihood ratios ranging 2.33-3.74; negative likelihood ratios ranging 0.31-0.9) and no utility for predicting failure after the second stage of 2-stage revision. CONCLUSIONS: Synovial WBC count, synovial PMN %, synovial fluid culture, serum ESR, and serum CRP have modest sensitivity and specificity for predicting persistent infection during the second stage of 2-stage revision, suggesting some combination of these diagnostic tests might be useful before reimplantation. No biomarker or culture accurately predicted treatment failure after reimplantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

What Is the Risk of Dislocation and Revision in Proximal Femoral Replacement with Dual-mobility Articulation After Two-stage Revision for Periprosthetic Hip Infection?

BACKGROUND: Dislocation is a major complication of revision THA after two-stage exchange for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The likelihood of dislocation can be particularly high if megaprosthetic proximal femoral replacement (PFR) has been performed during a second-stage reimplantation. Dual-mobility acetabular components are an established way of reducing the instability risk in revision THA; however, the likelihood of dislocation for dual-mobility reconstructions in the setting of a two-stage PFR has not been studied systematically, although patients with these reconstructions might be at an increased risk. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the risk of dislocation and revision for dislocation in patients who underwent PFR with a dual-mobility acetabular component as part of two-stage exchange for hip PJI? (2) What is the risk of all-cause implant revision and what other procedures were performed (apart from revision for a dislocation) in these patients? (3) What potential patient-related and procedure-related factors are associated with dislocation? METHODS: This was a retrospective study from a single academic center including procedures performed between 2010 and 2017. During the study period, 220 patients underwent two-stage revision for chronic hip PJI. Two-stage revision was the approach of choice for chronic infections, and we did not perform single-stage revisions for this indication during the study period. Thirty-three percent (73 of 220) of patients underwent second-stage reconstruction with a single-design, modular, megaprosthetic PFR because of femoral bone loss, using a cemented stem. A cemented dual-mobility cup was the approach of choice for acetabular reconstruction in the presence of a PFR; however, 4% (three of 73) were reconstructed with a bipolar hemiarthroplasty to salvage an infected saddle prosthesis, leaving 70 patients with a dual-mobility acetabular component and a PFR (84% [59 of 70]) or total femoral replacement (16% [11 of 70]). We used two similar designs of an unconstrained cemented dual-mobility cup during the study period. The median (interquartile range) patient age was 73 years (63 to 79 years), and 60% (42 of 70) of patients were women. The mean follow-up period was 50 ± 25 months with a minimum follow-up of 24 months for patients who did not undergo revision surgery or died (during the study period, 10% [seven of 70] died before 2 years). We recorded patient-related and surgery-related details from the electronic patient records and investigated all revision procedures performed until December 2021. Patients who underwent closed reduction for dislocation were included. Radiographic measurements of cup positioning were performed using supine AP radiographs obtained within the first 2 weeks after surgery using an established digital method. We calculated the risk for revision and dislocation using a competing-risk analysis with death as a competing event, providing 95% confidence intervals. Differences in dislocation and revision risks were assessed with Fine and Gray models providing subhazard ratios. All p values were two sided and the p value for significance was set at 0.05. RESULTS: The risk of dislocation (using a competing-risks survivorship estimator) was 17% (95% CI 9% to 32%) at 5 years, and the risk of revision for dislocation was 12% (95% CI 5% to 24%) at 5 years among patients treated with dual-mobility acetabular components as part of a two-stage revision for PJI of the hip. The risk of all-cause implant revision (using a competing-risk estimator, except for dislocation) was 20% (95% CI 12% to 33%) after 5 years. Twenty-three percent (16 of 70) of patients underwent revision surgery for reinfection and 3% (two of 70) of patients underwent stem exchange for a traumatic periprosthetic fracture. No patients underwent revision for aseptic loosening. We found no differences in patient-related and procedure-related factors or acetabular component positioning for patients with dislocation with the numbers available; however, patients with total femoral replacements had a higher likelihood of dislocation (subhazard ratio 3.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 13.3]; p = 0.03) and revision for a dislocation (subhazard ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1 to 18.5]; p = 0.04) than those who received PFR. CONCLUSION: Although dual-mobility bearings might be an intuitive potential choice to reduce the dislocation risk in revision THA, there is a considerable dislocation risk for PFR after two-stage surgery for PJI, particularly in patients with total femoral replacements. Although the use of an additional constraint might appear tempting, published results vary tremendously, and future studies should compare the performance of tripolar constrained implants to that of unconstrained dual-mobility cups in patients with PFR to reduce the risk of instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Is Prolonged Use of Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Postoperative Antithrombotic and Antispasmodic Treatments Necessary After Digit Replantation or Revascularization?

BACKGROUND: Ensuring the patency of repaired vessels is pivotal in improving the success rate of digit replantation. There is no consensus on how to best approach postoperative treatment for digit replantation. The influence of postoperative treatment on the risk of failure of revascularization or replantation remains unclear. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there an increased risk of postoperative infection with early discontinuation of antibiotic prophylaxis? (2) How are anxiety and depression affected by a treatment protocol consisting of prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis and administration of antithrombotic and antispasmodic drugs and by the failure of a revascularization or replantation procedure? (3) Are there differences in the risk of revascularization or replantation failure based on the number of anastomosed arteries and veins? (4) What factors are associated with failure of revascularization or replantation? METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and March 31, 2022. Initially, 1045 patients were identified. One hundred two patients chose revision of amputation. In all, 556 were excluded because of contraindications. We included all patients in whom the anatomic structures of the amputated part of the digit were well preserved, and those with an ischemia time for the amputated part that did not exceed 6 hours. Patients in good health without any other serious associated injuries or systemic diseases and those without a history of smoking were eligible for inclusion. The patients underwent procedures that were performed or supervised by one of four study surgeons. Patients were treated with antibiotic prophylaxis (1 week); patients treated with antithrombotic and antispasmodic drugs were categorized into the prolonged antibiotic prophylaxis group. The remaining patients treated with antibiotic prophylaxis for less than 48 hours and no antithrombotic and no antispasmodic drugs were categorized into the nonprolonged antibiotic prophylaxis group. Postoperative follow-up was for a minimum of 1 month. Based on the inclusion criteria, 387 participants with 465 digits were selected for an analysis of postoperative infection. Twenty-five participants with a postoperative infection (six digits) and other complications (19 digits) were excluded from the next stage of the study, in which we assessed factors associated with the risk of failure of revascularization or replantation. A total of 362 participants with 440 digits were examined, including the postoperative survival rate, variation in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores, the association between the survival rate and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores, and the survival rate based on the number of anastomosed vessels. Postoperative infection was defined as swelling, erythema, pain, purulent discharge, or a positive bacterial culture result. Patients were followed for 1 month. The differences in anxiety and depression scores between the two treatment groups and the differences in anxiety and depression scores based on failure of revascularization or replantation were determined. The difference in the risk of revascularization or replantation failure based on the number of anastomosed arteries and veins was assessed. Except for statistically significant variables (injury type and procedure), we thought that the number of arteries, number of veins, Tamai level, treatment protocol, and surgeons would be important. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to perform an adjusted analysis of risk factors such as postoperative protocol, injury type, procedure, number of arteries, number of veins, Tamai level, and surgeon. RESULTS: Postoperative infection did not appear to increase without prolonged use of antibiotic prophylaxis beyond 48 hours (1% [3 of 327] versus 2% [3 of 138]; OR 2.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5 to 12.0]; p = 0.37). Intervention with antithrombotic and antispasmodic therapy increased the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (11.2 ± 3.0 versus 6.7 ± 2.9, mean difference 4.5 [95% CI 4.0 to 5.2]; p < 0.01) and depression (7.9 ± 3.2 versus 5.2 ± 2.7, mean difference 2.7 [95% CI 2.1 to 3.4]; p < 0.01). In the analysis based on the failure of revascularization or replantation, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores for anxiety (11.4 ± 4.4 versus 9.7 ± 3.5, mean difference 1.7 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.8]; p < 0.01) and depression (8.5 ± 4.6 versus 7.0 ± 3.1, mean difference 1.5 [95% CI 0.5 to 2.5]; p < 0.01) were higher in the failed revascularization or replantation group than in the successful revascularization or replantation group. There was no increase in the artery-related risk of failure (one versus two anastomosed arteries: 91% versus 89%, OR 1.3 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.6]; p = 0.53). For patients with anastomosed veins, a similar outcome was observed for the two vein-related risk of failure (two versus one anastomosed vein: 90% versus 89%, OR 1.0 [95% CI 0.2 to 3.8]; p = 0.95) and three vein-related risk of failure (three versus one vein anastomosed: 96% versus 89%, OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.1 to 2.4]; p = 0.29). Factors associated with failure of revascularization or replantation included the mechanism of injury (crush: OR 4.2 [95% CI 1.6 to 11.2]; p < 0.01, avulsion: OR 10.2 [95% CI 3.4 to 30.7]; p < 0.01). Revascularization had a lower risk of failure than replantation (OR 0.4 [95% CI 0.2 to 1.0]; p = 0.04). Treatment with a protocol of prolonged antibiotics, antithrombotics, and antispasmodics was not associated with a lower risk of failure (OR 1.2 [95% CI 0.6 to 2.3]; p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: With proper wound debridement and patency of repaired vessels, prolonged use of antibiotic prophylaxis and regular antithrombotic and antispasmodic treatment may not be necessary for successful digit replantation. However, it may be associated with higher Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores. Postoperative mental status is associated with digit survival. Well-repaired vessels, instead of the number of anastomosed vessels, could be critical to survival and decrease the influence of risk factors. Further research on consensus guidelines that compare postoperative treatment and the surgeon's level of expertise after digit replantation should be conducted at multiple institutions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

A 39-Year-Old Woman with Endometriosis Who Developed a Subcapsular Liver Hematoma Following Laparotomic Surgical Left Adnexectomy, Rectosigmoid Anastomosis, and Bilateral Ureteral Reimplantation.

BACKGROUND Endometriosis is a chronic inflammatory disease caused by endometrial tissue that grows outside the uterus. Deep endometriosis surgery is associated with considerable rates of complications, although such rates are lower in surgical procedures carried out by expert surgical teams. This report details a case of a rare but life-threatening complication in the postoperative period following 72 h of endometriosis surgery: a giant subcapsular hepatic hematoma, which was successfully managed conservatively. CASE REPORT Here we describe the case of a 39-year-old woman with deep endometriosis with ureteral, ovarian, and intestinal involvement requiring multidisciplinary surgery. She presented with severe anemia, respiratory distress, and oliguria 72 h postoperatively. A 3-phase computed tomography (CT) scan revealed a giant intrahepatic subcapsular hematoma (180×165×50 mm) lateral to the right hepatic lobe, which was managed conservatively. The patient evolved favorably and the hematoma was reduced (77×16 mm) in a follow-up CT scan performed 5 months later. CONCLUSIONS Giant liver hematoma is a rare, life-threatening complication. The current experience relating to its management remains largely limited owing to the rarity of the condition and paucity of published cases. Actually, we found no articles on hepatic hematoma in the context of endometriosis surgery. Early diagnosis and treatment are essential to reduce the patient's risk of death. Imaging diagnosis plays an essential role.

Aortic valve reimplantation in patients with connective tissue disorders: Are the leaflets durable?

OBJECTIVE: The durability of reimplanted myxomatous aortic valves in root replacements for patients with connective tissue disorders (CTD) is unclear; therefore, we sought to evaluate the long-term resilience of these repairs. METHODS: From January 1980 to January 2020, 214 patients with CTD and 645 without CTD underwent primary, elective aortic valve reimplantation operations at Cleveland Clinic. The CTD cohort included 164 (77%) with Marfan, 23 (11%) with Loeys-Dietz, and 7 (3.3%) with Ehlers-Danlos CTD. We accounted for differing patient characteristics between the groups by propensity score matching to compare outcomes, yielding 96 matched pairs. Longitudinal echocardiographic measures were compared using nonlinear mixed effects models. RESULTS: In the CTD cohort, there were no operative mortalities (30-day or in-hospital), 1 (0.47%) stroke, and 1 (0.47%) early in-hospital reoperation for valve dysfunction. Ten-year prevalence of no aortic regurgitation was 86%, mild 11%, and moderate 3%. Ten-year freedom from reoperation was 97%. In propensity matched cohorts, there were no significant differences in in-hospital outcomes, longitudinal aortic regurgitation and mean gradient, risk of reoperation on the aortic valve, or risk of late death. CONCLUSIONS: Aortic valve reimplantation is a durable operation in patients with CTD and root aneurysms. These patients do not experience early degeneration of their reimplanted aortic valves.

Improved Outcomes of Reimplantation vs Remodeling in Marfan Syndrome: A Propensity-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Valve-sparing root replacement (VSRR) has excellent outcomes when performed in experienced centers in well-selected patients. It is suggested that reimplantation of the aortic valve may have better durability than remodeling in patients with Marfan syndrome (MFS), although long-term comparative data are limited. METHODS: Between 1988 and 2018, 194 patients with MFS underwent VSRR at our institution. From these, we derived a propensity-matched cohort of 68 patients (44 who underwent reimplantation and 24 who had remodeling). Early outcomes included death and perioperative complications. Late outcomes were survival, probability of aortic insufficiency, and reintervention up to 20 years of follow-up. Median follow-up was 17.8 years (interquartile range, 12.0-20.6 years) for the entire matched cohort. RESULTS: Baseline variables were similar between reimplantation and remodeling patients after matching: age (39 ± 12 vs 40 ± 13 years, P = .75) and male sex (28 [64%] vs 15 [63%], P = 1.0). Similar 20-year survival was observed after reimplantation compared with remodeling (82% vs 72%, P = .20), whereas the probability of developing greater than mild aortic insufficiency at 20 years was increased after remodeling (5.8% vs 13%, P = .013). More patients underwent reoperation on the aortic valve after a remodeling procedure than after reimplantation of the aortic valve (18% vs 0%, P = .018). CONCLUSIONS: VSRR provides excellent long-term survival and freedom from valve-related complications outcomes in patients with MFS. Reimplantation of the aortic valve was associated with a lower risk of aortic valve reoperation and aortic insufficiency than the remodeling procedure after 2 decades of follow-up.

Laparoscopic Ureteral Reimplantation after Failed Open Surgery: Incorporating the Psoas Hitch Maneuver for Sufficient Tunnel Length.

BACKGROUND: Failure after open ureteral reimplantation has been reported to occur in 2 to 7% of cases. While a second open reconstructive surgery is appropriate in most cases, there are data suggesting similar outcomes utilizing the laparoscopic approach. The objective of this study is to describe a modification and report our experience with laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation after failed open reimplantation reinforced with a psoas hitch. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of pediatric patients who underwent laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation after failed open surgery between September 2012 and April 2018 at three different academic centers was performed. Patient demographics, surgical indications, complications, and outcomes were reviewed. Either ipsilateral ureteral reimplantation with a combined intravesical and extravesical approaches or a cross-trigonal extravesical approach was utilized, depending on the length of the ureter. In all cases, a psoas hitch was performed to gain a longer submucosal tunnel and relieve tension, thus facilitating an efficient antireflux mechanism. RESULTS: Seventeen patients underwent a laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation after failed open surgery. Median age at second surgery was 106 months (interquartile range [IQR]: 53-122.5). Ipsilateral ureteral reimplantation with a combined intravesical and extravesical approaches was performed in 11 cases and cross-trigonal extravesical approach in 6 cases. Median ureteral diameter before the redo surgery was 16 mm (IQR: 14.5-18.5) and after surgery was 6 mm (IQR: 3.5-8.5) (p < 0.001). Postoperative mercaptoacetyltriglycine renal scan showed a nonobstructive pattern and stable renal function in all cases. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic ureteral reimplantation with incorporation of a psoas hitch after failed open reimplantation is safe and effective.

Laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation versus robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation for lower ureter pathology: Single-institutional comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare and analyze the results of laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation and robotic-assisted ureteric reimplantation at our tertiary institute. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data of adult patients who underwent laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation and robotic-assisted ureteric reimplantation between January 2000 and December 2020. Data were analyzed for 19 patients in the laparoscopic group and 47 patients in the robotic group. The data were compared in both the groups. RESULTS: The most common presentation was flank pain (67.89%) followed by recurrent UTI (21.05%) in both the groups. The baseline characteristics and demographic data including age, gender, laterality, Charlson comorbidity index, and BMI were comparable in both the groups. The time range from previous surgeries to presentation varied from 7 days to 5 years. There is statistically significant difference between the operative time in the laparoscopic (224.23 ± 76.61 min) and robotic groups (187.06 ± 52.81 min) (p = 0.027). There is statistically significant difference between the hospital stay also between the two groups (9.07 ± 2.75 vs. 6 ± 1.65 days p-0.001). There were no differences in the complication rate and postoperative outcomes in both the groups. Mean length of follow-up was 28 ± 25.5 (2-108) months and 20.57 ± 19.91 (2-96) months in both the groups, respectively. The success rates in terms of symptomatic improvement, decrease in hydronephrosis, and improved drainage in the laparoscopic and robotic groups were 94.73% and 95.45%, respectively, which were statistically not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic ureteric reimplantation and laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation are comparable in clinical outcomes. Robotic-assisted laparoscopic ureteric reimplantation is feasible, safe, and faster with excellent outcomes, decreased hospital stay, and minimal complications.

Outcomes of Second-stage Reimplantation After Modular Knee Arthrodesis for Periprosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: Modular knee arthrodesis (MKU) is a salvage treatment for recurrent periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) or PJI associated with notable bone loss. Reimplantation endoprosthetic reconstruction (REI) is an option in patients with MKU who have PJI clearance but are not satisfied with pain or functional outcomes with MKU. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of MKU to REI conversion. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study of 56 patients who underwent MKU to REI from 2010 to 2019. All patients were staged according to the McPherson staging system. An infecting organism was documented based on pre-MKU aspiration or intraoperative cultures at the time of MKU. Rate ratios were calculated for relevant patient factors. Rate ratios were calculated using Poisson regression with a log link. RESULTS: The mean REI patient age was 67 years, most of the patients were McPherson B hosts (62.5%) with a type 2 (46.4%) or type 3 (51.8%) limb score, and all PJI were chronic. The most common infecting organisms at the time of MKU were Staphylococcus epidermidis (23.2%) and Staphylococcus aureus (23.2%, MSSA 14.3%, MRSA 8.9%). The mean time from MKU to REI was 220 days. An 8.9% REI index hospitalization complication rate and a 21.4% overall complication rate (excluding reinfection) were observed. Sixty-seven percent of the patients remained infection-free at an average follow-up of 37 months, among those there was 96.4% implant survivorship. No notable association was observed between index PJI organism or McPherson staging and REI failure secondary to PJI. DISCUSSION: Approximately two thirds of patients who undergo conversion from MKU to REI have infection-free survival at the midterm follow-up. An index infecting organism and a McPherson host type do not seem to be markedly associated with reinfection risk. These findings help guide expectations of PJI MKU conversion to REI.

Efficacy and safety of robot-assisted laparoscopic, laparoscopic and open surgery in ureteral reimplantation: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.

To compare the efficacy and safety between open ureteral replantation (OUR), laparoscopic ureteral replantation (LUR) and robot-assisted laparoscopic ureteral replantation (RALUR). This review produced by the R3.5.0 software with "gemtc" program package and JAGS3.4.0 software based on the Bayesian model. A comprehensive search was done in databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane library, Cnki, CBM and WANFANG DATA. Studies that compared OUR, LUR OR RALUR were selected. Summary of Conclusions by ranking of Outcomes. A total of 3949 patients from 29 studies were included. The success rate in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 97.72%, 94.68% and 95.82%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.76 (0.42,1.7) and 0.76 (0.30, 2.6), respectively, compared with OUR. The rate of complications in OUR, LUR and RALUR was 12.78%, 7.94% and 16.32%. The OR (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR was 0.28 (0.16, 0.48) and 0.61 (0.24,1.3), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for operation time was 22 (2,40) and 46 (7.5,84), respectively, compared with OUR. The MD (95% CI) of LUR and RALUR for hospital stay was - 3.6 (- 4.5, - 2.7) and - 1.1 (- 2.9, 0.58), respectively, compared with OUR. There is no significant difference in the success rates of OUR, LUR, and RALUR. RALUR and OUR has similar complication rates and time of hospital stay, while LUR has fewer complications and faster time to discharge compared to RALUR and OUR. The operative time of OUR is significantly less compared to LUR and RALUR.