Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Tissue expansion is a well-recognized technique for reconstructing a wide variety of skin and soft tissue defects. Its application in the pediatric population has enabled the plastic surgeon to achieve functional and aesthetic goals that were previously unobtainable.

Objectives: To review the use of tissue expansion in the pediatric population, with particular emphasis on indication, operative technique, regional considerations and how to avoid complications.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed data on 103 expanded flap reconstructions performed in 41 pediatric patients during the period 2003–2006. Tissue expanders were placed on a subcutaneous plane above the fascia and inflated weekly. The expanded skin was used as a transposition flap or a full thickness skin graft for the reconstruction of the involved area. Forty-three tissue expanders were inserted to the head and neck in 21 patients, 45 were inserted to the trunk in 13 patients and 15 were inserted to the groin and lower extremity in 8 patients. Twenty-eight patients had one round of tissue expansion, while 13 patients had two to six rounds. A plastic surgeon, medical student and a lawyer reviewed the patients' photographs and evaluated their aesthetic outcome:

Results: Eighty-six percent of the head and neck reconstructions and 40% of the trunk and extremity reconstructions were graded as having excellent aesthetic outcome, and 11% of the head and neck reconstructions and 37% of the trunk and extremity reconstructions were graded with good aesthetic outcome. The remaining patients were graded with moderate outcome. None of our patients was graded as poor aesthetic outcome. Complications included infection in 6 patients (6%), extrusion in 3 (3%), hematoma in 2 (2%), flap ischemia in one patient (1%), and expander perforation after percutaneous stabbing in one patient (1%).

Conclusions: Tissue expansion is an efficient and valuable technique for reconstruction of large skin lesions and scars.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast has emerged as a valuable imaging tool in addition to conventional imaging modalities. It has high sensitivity for malignant lesions, and can detect mammographically, sonographically and clinically occult cancers. “MR only” lesions are best biopsied under MR guidance; however, this may be a challenging task.

Objectives:  To evaluate our initial clinical experience with MR-guided core needle breast biopsy and MR-guided needle localization.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 81 women with 97 lesions, who were scheduled for guided core needle biopsy or MR-guided needle localization followed by surgery. Lesions were categorized as malignant, high risk, or benign according to the BI- RADS MR classification system. MR findings were compared with final histopathology or with follow-up imaging findings.

Results: Fifteen (16%) lesions were malignant (9 invasive ductal carcinoma, 2 invasive lobular carcinoma, 4 ductal carcinoma in situ); 7 (7%) lesions were high risk (4 atypical ductal hyperplasia, 3 radial scars); 75 (77%) lesions were benign, mainly fibrocystic changes. Other benign findings were sclerosing adenosis, pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia, fat necrosis, intraductal papilloma, fibroadenoma, capillary hemangioma, and florid ductal hyperplasia. No major complications were encountered.
Conclusions: MR-guided interventional procedures of the breast are accurate, safe and feasible methods for sampling breast lesions detected only by MR and have become a significant tool in the management of certain patients.

Background: The management of aspirin therapy before an invasive procedure poses a frequent clinical dilemma due to uncertainty regarding b[AS1] leeding versus thromboembolic risks associated with continuation or withdrawal of the drug. There is no evidence-based data to refer to.

Objectives: To assess the opinions of internal medicine physicians regarding aspirin therapy prior to an invasive procedure.

Methods: A questionnaire presenting nine hypothetical cases with different combinations of bleeding and thromboembolic risk was given to physicians in an Internal Medicine Division during a personal interview. For each case the participants had to choose between withdrawal of aspirin prior to an invasive procedure, continuation of aspirin, or substitution of low molecular weight heparin for aspirin. Results: Sixty-one physicians participated in the survey. For a patient with low thromboembolic risk, 77% (95% confidence interval 65.3–86.3%), 95% (87.2–98.7%) and 97% (89.6–99.5%) of physicians elected to discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high bleeding risk procedure, respectively. For intermediate risk patients, 23% (95% CI[1] 13.7–34.7%), 59% (46.4–70.8%) and 74% (61.7–83.6%) would discontinue aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, and 5% (95% CI 1.3–12.8%), 23% (13.7–34.7%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) would substitute LMWH[2] for aspirin. For a patient with high thromboembolic risk, 1.6% (95% CI 0.08–7.8%), 11.5% (5.2–21.4%) and 18% (9.9–29.2%) recommended discontinuing aspirin prior to a low, intermediate or high risk procedure, respectively. In these situations, 18% (95% CI 9.9–29.2%), 53% (40.0–64.7%) and 57% (44.8–69.3%), respectively, would substitute LMWH for aspirin.

Conclusions: The results of the current investigation may help practicing physicians to decide whether to discontinue aspirin therapy prior to invasive procedures. The possible use of LMWH to replace aspirin as suggested here should be further evaluated in a controlled clinical study.

 

Background: Endobronchial stents are used to treat symptomatic patients with benign or malignant airway obstructions.

Objectives: To evaluate the safety and outcome of airway stent insertion for the treatment of malignant tracheobronchial narrowing.

Methods: The files of all patients with malignant disease who underwent airway stent insertion in our outpatient clinic from June 1995 to August 2004 were reviewed for background data, type of disease, symptoms, treatment, complications, and outcome.

Results: Airway stents were used in 34 patients, including 2 who required 2 stents at different locations, and one who required 2 adjacent stents (total, 37 stents). Ages ranged from 36 to 85 years (median 68). Primary lung cancer was noted in 35% of the patients and metastatic disease in 65%. Presenting signs and symptoms included dyspnea (82%), cough (11.7%), hemoptysis (9%), pneumonia (5.9%), and atelectasis (3%). The lesions were located in the left mainstem bronchus (31%), trachea (26%), right mainstem bronchus (26%), subglottis (14.3%), and bronchus intermedius (2.9%). Conscious sedation alone was utilized in 73% of the patients, allowing for early discharge. Eighteen patients (50%) received brachytherapy to the area of obstruction. Complications included stent migration (one patient) and severe or minimal bleeding (one patient each). Ninety-four percent of the patients reported significant relief of their dyspnea. Three of the four patients who had been mechanically ventilated before the procedure were weaned after stent insertion. Median survival from the time of stent placement was 6 months (range 0.25–105 months).

Conclusion: Stent placement can be safely performed in an outpatient setting with conscious sedation. It significantly relieves the patient's symptoms and may prolong survival.
 

The treatment of acute pain and anxiety in children undergoing therapeutic and diagnostic procedures in the emergency department has improved dramatically in recent years. The availability of non-invasive monitoring devices and the use of short-acting sedative and analgesic medications enable physicians to conduct safe and effective sedation and analgesia treatment. In today's practice of pediatric emergency medicine, sedation and analgesia has been considered as the standard of care for procedural pain. In most pediatric emergency departments throughout North America, "procedural sedation and analgesia" treatment is being performed by non-anesthesiologists (qualified emergency physicians and nurses). In 2003, the Israel Ministry of Health published formal guidelines for pediatric sedation by non-anesthesiologists; this important document recognizes for the first time the need for pediatric sedation and analgesia in the operating room. We describe the basic principles of procedural sedation and analgesia in children and urge physicians working in pediatric emergency rooms in Israel to expand their knowledge and be more involved in the treatment of pediatric procedural pain.

Background: The ischemic “steal” syndrome complicates angio-access in a growing number of hemodialysed patients. Until now, operative attempts (fistula ligation or banding) to treat this problem have met with only limited success.

Objective: To assess the results of DRIL (distal revascularization-interval ligation) procedure in treating the “steal” syndrome.

Methods: A retrospective review (1996–2002) was conducted of all 11 patients who underwent the DRIL[1] procedure in two tertiary care hemodialysis units.

Results: Two patients were excluded because of inadequate medical documentation. All of the nine patients remaining suffered from overt atherosclerotic disease, six had diabetic nephropathy and four were smokers. The arterio-venous access, which led to the “steal” syndrome, was proximally located in all (antecubital in 8, thigh area in 1). “Steal” symptoms included hand pain, paraesthesia, neurologic deficits and gangrenous ulcers. DRIL was technically successful in all patients. There were no perioperative deaths. Immediate and complete relief of pain was achieved in eight of the nine patients. One patient with gangrene later required a transmetacarpal amputation. No patient required hand amputation. During follow-up (range 1–26 months) hemodialysis was continued uninterruptedly using the problematic AVA[2] in all patients. Thrombosis occurred in the AVA in only two patients after the DRIL procedure at 9 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. Three patient deaths were unrelated to the DRIL.

Conclusions: In selected patients the DRIL procedure is a safe and effective way to treat the “steal” syndrome. AVA patency is not compromised by this operation. Preoperative angiography, before and after manual compression of the AVA, is crucial for the proper selection of patients who will benefit most from the DRIL procedure.