Indications for implant removal after fracture healing: a review of the literature

Introduction: The aim of this review was to collect and summarize published data on the indications for implant removal after fracture healing, since these are not well defined and guidelines hardly exist. Methods: A literature search was performed. Results: Though there are several presumed benefits of implant removal, such as functional improvement and pain relief, the surgical procedure can be very challenging and may lead to complications or even worsening of the complaints. Research has focused on the safety of metal implants (e.g., risk of corrosion, allergy, and carcinogenesis). For these reasons, implants have been removed routinely for decades. Along with the introduction of titanium alloy implants, the need for implant removal became a subject of debate in view of potential (dis)advantages since, in general, implants made of titanium alloys are more difficult to remove. Currently, the main indications for removal from both the upper and lower extremity are mostly 'relative' and patient-driven, such as pain, prominent material, or simply the request for removal. True medical indications like infection or intra-articular material are minor reasons. Conclusion: This review illustrates the great variety of view points in the literature, with large differences in opinions and practices about the indications for implant removal after fracture healing. Since some studies have described asymptomatic patients developing complaints after removal, the general advice nowadays is to remove implants after fracture healing only in symptomatic patients and after a proper informed consent. Well-designed prospective studies on this subject are urgently needed in order to form guidelines based on scientific evidence

Autologous microsurgical breast reconstruction and coronary artery bypass grafting: an anatomical study and clinical implications

OBJECTIVE: To identify possible avenues of sparing the internal mammary artery (IMA) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in women undergoing autologous breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps. BACKGROUND: Optimal autologous reconstruction of the breast and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are often mutually exclusive as they both require utilisation of the IMA as the preferred arterial conduit. Given the prevalence of both breast cancer and coronary artery disease, this is an important issue for women's health as women with DIEP flap reconstructions and women at increased risk of developing coronary artery disease are potentially restricted from receiving this reconstructive option should the other condition arise. METHODS: The largest clinical and cadaveric anatomical study (n=315) to date was performed, investigating four solutions to this predicament by correlating the precise requirements of breast reconstruction and CABG against the anatomical features of the in situ IMAs. This information was supplemented by a thorough literature review. RESULTS: Minimum lengths of the left and right IMA needed for grafting to the left-anterior descending artery are 160.08 and 177.80 mm, respectively. Based on anatomical findings, the suitable options for anastomosis to each intercostals space are offered. In addition, 87-91% of patients have IMA perforator vessels to which DIEP flaps can be anastomosed in the first- and second-intercostal spaces. CONCLUSION: We outline five methods of preserving the IMA for future CABG: (1) lowering the level of DIEP flaps to the fourth- and fifth-intercostals spaces, (2) using the DIEP pedicle as an intermediary for CABG, (3) using IMA perforators to spare the IMA proper, (4) using and end-to-side anastomosis between the DIEP pedicle and IMA and (5) anastomosis of DIEP flaps using retrograde flow from the distal IMA. With careful patient selection, we hypothesize using the IMA for autologous breast reconstruction need not be an absolute contraindication for future CABG

Internal thoracic vein draining into the extrapericardial part of the superior vena cava: a case report

The internal thoracic veins are venae comitantes of each internal thoracic artery draining the territory supplied by it and usually unite opposite the third costal cartilage. This single vein enters the corresponding brachiocephalic vein. We present a variation of right internal mammary vein draining into superior vena cava in a 45-year-old male cadaver. Likely development and clinical significance of the vein are discussed.<br>As veias torácicas internas são veias comitantes de cada artéria torácica interna drenando o território suprido por ela e geralmente se unem em frente à terceira cartilagem costal. Esta única veia entra na veia braquicefálica correspondente. Apresentamos uma variação da veia mamária interna direita drenando para a veia cava superior em um cadáver masculino de 45 anos. O provável desenvolvimento e a significância clínica da veia são discutidos