Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are central venous catheters (CVCs) that are commonly used in onco‐hematologic settings for chemotherapy administration. As there is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific CVC for chemotherapy administration, we aimed to ascertain PICC‐related adverse events (AEs) and identify independent predictors of PICC removal in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Materials and Methods Information on adult patients with cancer with a PICC inserted for chemotherapy administration between September 2007 and December 2014 was extracted from six hospital databases. The primary outcome was PICC removal due to PICC‐related AEs (occlusion, infection, or symptomatic thrombosis). Independent predictors of PICC removal were identified using a multivariate Cox regression model. Results Among the 2,477 included patients, 419 PICC‐related AEs (16.9%; 1.09 AEs per 1,000 PICC‐days) were reported. AEs increased when PICC was inserted at the brachial site (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.84) and with open systems (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.24–2.88) and decreased in older men (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.49–0.81). Conclusion Use of PICC for chemotherapy administration was associated with a low all‐AEs rate. The basilic vein was the safer site, and valved systems had fewer AEs than open systems. More research is needed to explore the interaction between AEs, sex, and age. Implications for Practice These findings provide clinicians with evidence that peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are safe for chemotherapy administration. They also suggest that clinicians should limit the use of open systems when long chemotherapy regimens are scheduled. Moreover, alternatives to PICCs should be considered when administering chemotherapy to young men.

Since 2001, Hyalomatrix PA (Fidia Advanced Biopolymers, Abano Terme, Italy) has been used in our center on pediatric burned patients as a temporary dermal substitute to cover deep partial-thickness burns after dermabrasion. This "bridge" treatment was adopted to remove necrotic debris (dermabrasion) and to stimulate regeneration in a humid and protected environment (Hyalomatrix PA). We present results obtained with this approach. On the third to fifth day after admission, dermabrasion was practiced on deep burned areas, which were covered with Hyalomatrix PA. Change of dressings was performed every 7 days. On day 21, those areas still without signs of recovery were removed with classic escharectomy and covered with thin skin grafts. We treated 300 patients. Sixty-one percent needed only one dermabrasion treatment, 22.3% (67 patients) more than one, and 16.7% (50 patients) the classic escharectomy. A total of 83% of patients healed within 21 days. Our study suggests that the combination of dermabrasion with a temporary dermal substitute could be a good and feasible approach for treatment of deep partial-thickness burns. Prospective randomized studies are now necessary to compare our protocol with the gold standard treatment of topical dressings.

No abstract

No statistical difference in terms of post-operative fertility outcome between patients subjected to UO, AP or CO was found, thus allowing to suppose that the removal of one ovary does not significantly worsen the female fertility outcome respect to other abdominal or pelvic procedures.