PURPOSE: Matriderm(R) is a highly porous dermal substitute consisting of a collagen matrix (collagen type I, III, and V) cross-linked to an elastin hydrolysate. The 1 mm thickness Matriderm(R) is used in a one-stage procedure. On the other hand, 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R) has been used in two-stage procedures in combination with split thickness skin grafts (STSG) for reconstruction as dermal substitute. To the best our knowledge, there is no case that reports the single stage procedure with 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R). There are many expected advantages if a two-stage surgery could be performed by one-stage procedure as long as the result is guaranteed. The purpose of this study is to present capacity of 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R) as a dermal substitute in single stage skin grafting by the successful results of six cases. METHODS: We performed this one-stage procedure in five patients instead of soft tissue reconstruction. Those patients were required soft tissue reconstruction after trauma injuries or radial forearm harvest as a donor site in the period between 2011 and 2012. Five Patients were treated with a combination of STSG and 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R) solely. Three out of five patients who were injured by trauma got transplanted splint thickness skin that were range from 4/1000~8/1000 inches (Table 1). Patients' data were analyzed retrospectively by chart review and patients interviews. Each patient's chart was reviewed for age, gender, type of injury, complications, final outcome and successful rates. RESULTS: The patient group consisted of 4 men and 1 woman between ages of 5 and 70. The clinical results of these five treated patients concerning skin-quality and coverage of exposed soft tissue were very good. Using 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R) the wound could gain more dermal substitute compare to 1 mm thickness Matriderm(R). CONCLUSION: Matriderm(R) is a single-use three-dimensional matrix composed of native, structurally intact collagen fibrils and elastin for supporting dermal regeneration. In this study five patients with trauma injuries or radial forearm harvest as a donor site were treated with 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R) as a dermal substitute and STSG as a single-stage procedure to cover exposed structures. Compare to 1 mm Matriderm(R), 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R) provide more dermal collagen and enhance skin-elastisity. Achieving single stage STSG with 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R), patient's hospital days were reduced in half and infection chances were also decreased. In conclusion, single skin grafting with 2 mm thickness Matriderm(R) is feasible and it is time-effient and cost effective procedure.
Collagen ; Elastin ; Female ; Forearm ; Hand ; Humans ; Male ; Regeneration ; Retrospective Studies ; Skin Transplantation ; Skin* ; Splints ; Tissue Donors ; Transplants ; Wounds and Injuries

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of bifocal versus trifocal diffractive intraocular lens (IOL) implantation on visual quality after phacoemulsification in patients with cataracts. METHODS: Eighty-eight eyes from 63 patients were analyzed. Trifocal (AT LISA tri 839MP), bifocal (AcrySof IQ ReSTOR) and bifocal (Tecnis MF ZLB00) IOLs were implanted into 53, 18, and 17 eyes, respectively. Uncorrected distance, intermediate and near visual acuity, refractive errors, contrast sensitivity, and patient satisfaction were measured at 1 week and 1 month after surgery. Refractive error was converted to a spherical equivalent and compared to predicted refraction calculated by IOL calculation formulas. RESULTS: Uncorrected distance, intermediate, and near visual acuity did not differ significantly between groups. One month after surgery, the mean refractive errors were −0.07 diopters (D) in the AT LISA tri 839MP group, +0.18 D in the AcrySof IQ ReSTOR group, and +0.31 D in the Tecnis MF ZLB00 group (p < 0.001). The predictive accuracy of IOL calculation formulas did not differ between groups. Contrast sensitivity, satisfaction, and spectacle independence in the trifocal group were comparable with those of the two bifocal groups. CONCLUSIONS: Trifocal IOL and two different types of bifocal IOL implantation were all effective for improving visual quality, although refractive error in patients with trifocal IOL shows myopic tendencies.
Cataract ; Contrast Sensitivity ; Humans ; Lens Implantation, Intraocular ; Lenses, Intraocular ; Patient Satisfaction ; Phacoemulsification ; Presbyopia ; Refractive Errors ; Visual Acuity

We introduce a new silicone implanting method to correct facial depression caused by trauma or congenital anomaly. It resulted in good facial aesthetics in patients with facial depression. From August 1997 to January 1999, 5 patient (3 males and 2 females), in ages from 19 to 34 years, underwent silicone implantation for facial depression using our method. Three males were injured by traffic accident and had facial depression with or without bone defect. Two females had congenital forhead depression and requested aesthetic contouring. An impression of the face was taken with alginate backed with quick setting plaster. When set, a further stone plaster model was taken from the alginate-plaster, which was removed after fixation. Wax was then carved into the patient's stone model to fill the depression. Another stone cover was taken to cover this was-stone model. Then wax was melted away and medical implant grade room temperature vulcanized silicone adhesive was squeezed into the empty space. After cured, this precisely-shaped silicone imlant was inserted into the patient. We did not experience major complicaion such as infection, implant extrusion during 4 to 18 months' follow-up periods. All patients were satisfied with the results. The clinical result of this technique would be useful for accurate and excellent aesthetic implantation.
Accidents, Traffic ; Adhesives ; Depression* ; Esthetics ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Silicones*

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy of toric intraocular lens (IOL) axis prediction between two preoperative measurement devices: the optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and the dual Scheimpflug topography (Galilei G4) Methods: Medical records of 64 eyes from 44 patients who underwent phacoemulsification and posterior chamber toric IOL (Zeiss AT TORBI 709M) implantation between July 2017 and January 2022 were reviewed. All patients underwent preoperative evaluation by optical biometry (IOLMaster 500 or IOLMaster 700) and Galilei G4. The gold-standard axis that minimizes astigmatism was calculated by the online Toric Results Analyzer postoperatively and compared to the preoperative toric IOL axis calculated by the Z CALC Online IOL Calculator using parameters from either IOLMaster or Galilei G4. The axis error (AE) and the absolute AE (AAE) between the gold-standard axis and the preoperative calculated axis were analyzed to assess the accuracy of each device. Results: The mean flat keratometry and steep keratometry were 42.99 diopters (D) and 45.61 D, respectively, in IOLMaster, and 43.04 D and 45.51 D, respectively, in Galilei G4, which did not show any significant difference. The mean keratometric astigmatism was 2.62 D in IOLMaster and 2.46 D in Galilei G4, which also did not show any statistical difference. The keratometric astigmatism axis did not show any significant difference between IOLMaster and Galilei G4. The mean AE and AAE were 0.19° and 6.84°, respectively, by IOLMaster, and –0.80° and 7.98°, respectively, by Galilei G4. The AE and AAE by IOLMaster did not show any significant difference compared to those of Galilei G4 (p = 0.583, and p = 0.346, respectively). Conclusions This study suggests that the Galilei G4 demonstrated a similar level of accuracy to the IOLMaster in predicting the toric IOL axis, based on the gold-standard axis provided by the Toric Results Analyzer.

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is the most common cause of in-hospital mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Despite improvement in coronary care, the in-hospital mortality rate of cardiogenic shock is very high in conventional conservative therapy. Recently, it was suggested that coronary angioplasty may reduce the mortality associated with cardiogenic shock. METHOD: Thirteen consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent coronary angioplasty were studied. Shock was not induced by mechanical complications, arrhythmia, hypovolemia and other reversible cause. We collected and analyzed the clinical, hemodynamic survivor groups. RESULTS: Of 13 patients, 11 had successful reperfusion of the infarct-related coronary artery and 2 had unsuccessful reperfusion. Of 11 patients with successful angioplasty, 8 survived at the time of hospital discharge. All patents with unsuccessful angioplasty died in the hospital. Therefore overall hospital survival rate was 62% and the rate increased to 73% in patients with successful reperfusion. Survivor and non-survivor groups in clinical, hemodynamic and angiographic variables were similar except systolic blood pressure and the presence of successful reperfusion. CONCLUSION: In patients with cardiogenic shock, the patency of infarct-related coronary artery was strongly associated with in-hospital mortality. This findings support aggressive interventional strategy in patient with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
Angioplasty ; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary* ; Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Blood Pressure ; Coronary Vessels ; Hemodynamics ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Hypovolemia ; Mortality ; Myocardial Infarction* ; Reperfusion ; Shock ; Shock, Cardiogenic* ; Survival Rate ; Survivors

BACKGROUND: Cardiogenic shock is the most common cause of in-hospital mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Despite improvement in coronary care, the in-hospital mortality rate of cardiogenic shock is very high in conventional conservative therapy. Recently, it was suggested that coronary angioplasty may reduce the mortality associated with cardiogenic shock. METHOD: Thirteen consecutive patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent coronary angioplasty were studied. Shock was not induced by mechanical complications, arrhythmia, hypovolemia and other reversible cause. We collected and analyzed the clinical, hemodynamic survivor groups. RESULTS: Of 13 patients, 11 had successful reperfusion of the infarct-related coronary artery and 2 had unsuccessful reperfusion. Of 11 patients with successful angioplasty, 8 survived at the time of hospital discharge. All patents with unsuccessful angioplasty died in the hospital. Therefore overall hospital survival rate was 62% and the rate increased to 73% in patients with successful reperfusion. Survivor and non-survivor groups in clinical, hemodynamic and angiographic variables were similar except systolic blood pressure and the presence of successful reperfusion. CONCLUSION: In patients with cardiogenic shock, the patency of infarct-related coronary artery was strongly associated with in-hospital mortality. This findings support aggressive interventional strategy in patient with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction.
Angioplasty ; Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary* ; Arrhythmias, Cardiac ; Blood Pressure ; Coronary Vessels ; Hemodynamics ; Hospital Mortality ; Humans ; Hypovolemia ; Mortality ; Myocardial Infarction* ; Reperfusion ; Shock ; Shock, Cardiogenic* ; Survival Rate ; Survivors