Background: We report our 10-year experience with traumatic peripheral arterial injury repair at an urban level I trauma center. Methods: Between January 2007 and December 2016, 28 adult trauma patients presented with traumatic peripheral arterial injuries. Data were retrospectively collected on demographic characteristics, the mechanism of injury, the type of vascular injury, and physiological status on initial assessment. The analysis also included the Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS), Injury Severity Score, surgical procedures, and outcome variables including limb salvage, hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, and postoperative vascular complications. Results: Four (14.3%) patients required amputation due to failed revascularization. MESS significantly differed between patients with blunt and penetrating trauma (8.2±2.2 vs.5.8±1.3, respectively; p=0.005). The amputation rate was not significantly different between patients with blunt and penetrating trauma (20% vs. 0%, respectively; p=0.295). The overall mortality rate was 3.6% (1 patient). Conclusion Blunt trauma was associated with higher MESS than penetrating trauma, and amputation was more frequent. In particular, patients with blunt trauma had significantly higher MESS than patients with penetrating trauma (8.2±2.2 vs. 5.8±1.3, respectively; p=0.005), and amputation was performed when revascularization failed in cases of blunt trauma of the lower extremity. Therefore, particular care is needed in making treatment decisions for patients with peripheral arterial injuries caused by blunt trauma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the surface characteristics and healing patterns after implantation of implants treated with SLA and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 male New Zealand white rabbits were used to compare recovery levels between implants treated with SLA (SLA group) and those treated with both SLA and femtosecond laser (SF group). The implants’ surface characteristics were determined through topographic evaluation, element analysis, surface roughness, and wettability evaluation. In total, 4 implants were placed in each rabbit (2 in each tibia), with 20 implants per treatment group. Using the implant stability quotient (ISQ), marginal bone volume, and histological analysis (bone-to-implant contact (BIC), bone volume/tissue volume (BV/TV)), and post implantation outcomes were assessed. Outcome data were analyzed using independent t-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, and one-way ANOVA (α = 0.05). RESULTS: No significant differences were noted between SLA and SF groups in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV (P > .05). However, significant differences in ISQ were observed within each group over time (P < .05). Furthermore, significant differences were noted in the marginal bone volume of the SF group (P < .05) and the BV/TV of the SLA group between weeks 4 and 6 (P < .05). CONCLUSION Surface treatment via SLA and femtosecond laser is feasible compared with SLA treatment alone in terms of ISQ, marginal bone volume, BIC, and BV/TV. However, further clinical research is warranted.