OBJECTIVES Bilateral diaphragmatic dysfunction results in severe dyspnoea, usually requiring oxygen therapy and nocturnal ventilatory support. Although treatment options are limited, phrenic nerve reconstruction (PR) offers the opportunity to restore functional activity. This study aims to evaluate combination treatment with PR and placement of a diaphragm pacemaker (DP) compared to DP placement alone in patients with bilateral diaphragmatic dysfunction. METHODS Patients with bilateral diaphragmatic dysfunction were prospectively enrolled in the following treatment algorithm: Unilateral PR was performed on the more severely impacted side with bilateral DP implantation. Motor amplitudes, ultrasound measurements of diaphragm thickness, maximal inspiratory pressure, forced expiratory volume, forced vital capacity and subjective patient-reported outcomes were obtained for retrospective analysis following completion of the prospective database. RESULTS Fourteen male patients with bilateral diaphragmatic dysfunction confirmed on chest fluoroscopy and electrodiagnostic testing were included. All 14 patients required nocturnal ventilator support, and 8/14 (57.1%) were oxygen-dependent. All patients reported subjective improvement, and all 8 oxygen-dependent patients were able to discontinue oxygen therapy following treatment. Improvements in maximal inspiratory pressure, forced vital capacity and forced expiratory volume were 68%, 47% and 53%, respectively. There was an average improvement of 180% in motor amplitude and a 50% increase in muscle thickness. Comparison of motor amplitude changes revealed significantly greater functional recovery on the PR + DP side. CONCLUSIONS PR and simultaneous implantation of a DP may restore functional activity and alleviate symptoms in patients with bilateral diaphragmatic dysfunction. PR plus diaphragm pacing appear to result in greater functional muscle recovery than pacing alone.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAbdominal free flap harvest for breast reconstruction may result in significant morbidity in terms of hernias and bulges. Reinforcement of the donor site with mesh has been recommended to minimize the risk of hernias and bulges, but no studies exist evaluating the optimal type of mesh. Polypropylene has traditionally been used but the development of Phasix restorable mesh may be a reasonable alternative. Here, we compared the use of Phasix to polypropylene and primary closure and hypothesize that the former has lower rates of abdominal morbidity in the long term.Patients and MethodsA retrospective review of all patients undergoing bilateral free flap breast reconstruction from the abdomen was performed while patients with pedicle flaps or alternative donor sites were excluded. Patient demographics, medical/surgical history, cancer treatments, and flap type were analyzed. All patients were monitored for a minimum of 2 years for early donor site complications as well as hernia/bulges.ResultsSixty‐six consecutive patients were included (40 patients with Phasix, 20 patients with polypropylene, and 6 patients with primary closure). Use of Phasix mesh resulted in higher initial operative costs ($2,750 vs. $72 vs. $0). Two patients with polypropylene mesh and one patient undergoing primary closure developed an abdominal bulge in an average follow‐up of 25.2 months (11.5% vs. 0%, p = .04).ConclusionsMesh placement for abdominal wall reinforcement after bilateral free flap breast reconstruction minimizes the risk of hernias and bulges. Although Phasix results in increased initial costs, abdominal morbidity is significantly decreased after follow‐up beyond 2 years.

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device infections are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. There are varied recommendations in the literature about treatment of the wound after extraction of all hardware, but only conservative, time-consuming approaches such as open packing and negative-pressure therapy along with a long interval before reimplanting any hardware have generally been recommended for the treatment. 1 – 4 Methods: A retrospective review was performed of 42 patients treated at Jersey Shore University Medical Center for implantable cardioverter defibrillator and permanent pacemaker infections between July 2010 and April 2018 with an aggressive, multidisciplinary approach utilizing an invasive cardiologist and a plastic surgeon. Clinical and demographic data were collected, and a descriptive analysis was conducted. Results: A total of 42 patients, with a median age of 76 years, were selected for our treatment of pacemaker pocket infection. Patients underwent removal of all hardware followed by debridement and flap closure of the wound soon after extraction. Reimplantation was performed when indicated typically within a week after initial extraction and typically on the contralateral side. There were no reports of reinfection and no mortality in all 42 patients treated. Conclusion: We found that the aggressive removal of all hardware and excisional debridement of the entire capsule followed by flap coverage and closure of the wound allowed for a shortened interval to reimplantation with no ipsilateral or contralateral infections during the follow-up period.