PurposeTo compare the diagnostic power of slit-lamp examination with the in vivo corneal confocal microscopy (IVCM) as the gold standard in assessing the presence of corneal epithelial deposits in patients with Fabry disease (FD).MethodsFourteen patients with FD (4 males, 10 females; mean age, 46.8 years) and eight healthy controls (4 males, 4 females; mean age, 36.75 years) were included. All subjects underwent slit-lamp examination and IVCM of both central and peripheral corneal quadrants with the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph-III in combination with the Rostock Cornea Module.ResultsIn patients with FD, 9 of 28 eyes (32%) showed the presence of cornea verticillata at the slit-lamp examination and 25 eyes (89%) showed the presence of epithelial hyper-reflective deposits at the IVCM. Of the 19 eyes negative at the slit-lamp examination, 16 eyes showed the presence of epithelial deposits at the IVCM. Compared with controls, patients with FD had a significantly reduced number, density and length of nerve fibres at the level of corneal sub-basal nerve plexus, but a significantly higher grade of fibres tortuosity.ConclusionsThe slit-lamp examination has a limited diagnostic power in the detection of epithelial deposits in patients with FD when compared with the IVCM. In fact, the slit-lamp examination suffers from a high number of false negative results and, consequently, from a low negative predictive value (16%). IVCM allows the detection of corneal microstructural changes in patients with FD and may represent a reliable tool for the early diagnosis and follow-up of the disease.
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most common surgical procedures in orthopedics; however, it is subjected to different kinds of failures, one of them being dislocation. Many different prosthetic designs have been developed to overcome this problem, such as dual mobility coupling. The main purpose of this article is to determine whether there are differences regarding the revision surgery of unstable THA comparing the risk of failure between dual mobility cup (DMC) implants, standard implants, and among different head sizes. A registry-based population study has been conducted by analyzing data collected by the Emilia Romagna Registry of Orthopedic Prosthetic Implants (RIPO), including a total of 253 implants failed for dislocation and instability that were operated on by cup revision surgery between 2000 and 2019. The selected population has been divided into two groups based on the insert type: standard and DMC. The age at revision surgery was significantly lower in the standard cup group with respect to DMC (p = 0.014 t-test), with an average age of 71.2 years (33–96 years range) for the standard cups and 74.8 years (48–92 years range) for the DMC group. The cumulative survival of DMC implants was 82.0% at 5-years, decreasing to 77.5% at a 10-year follow-up, which is not significantly different from standard cups (p = 0.676, Log-Rank test). DMC implants showed a significantly lower risk of re-revision for dislocation compared to standard cups (p = 0.049). Femoral heads ≥36 mm had a higher overall survival compared to smaller femoral heads (p = 0.030). This study demonstrated that DMC or femoral heads ≥36 mm are a valid choice to manage THA instability and to reduce the revision rate for dislocation at a mid-term follow-up; in those selected and targeted patients, these options should be taken into consideration because they are associated with better outcomes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.