Objective: To analyze the feasibility and safety of bridge therapy with active fixed electrodes connected to external permanent pacemakers (AFLEP) for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods: A total of 44 pacemaker-dependent patients, who underwent lead removal due to infective endocarditis in our center from January 2015 to January 2020, were included. According to AFLEP or temporary pacemaker option during the transition period, patients were divided into AFLEP group or temporary pacemaker group. Information including age, sex, comorbidities, indications and types of cardial implantable electionic device (CIED) implantation, lead age, duration of temporary pacemaker or AFLEP use, and perioperative complications were collected through Haitai Medical Record System. The incidence of pacemaker perception, abnormal pacing function, lead perforation, lead dislocation, lead vegetation, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary embolism, death and newly infection of implanted pacemaker were compared between the two groups. Pneumothorax, hematoma and the incidence of deep vein thrombosis were also analyzed. Results: Among the 44 patients, 24 were in the AFLEP group and 20 in the temporary pacemaker group. Age was younger in the AFLEP group than in the temporary pacemaker group (57.5(45.5, 66.0) years vs. 67.0(57.3, 71.8) years, P=0.023). Male, prevalence of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal dysfunction and old myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups (all P>0.05). Lead duration was 11.0(8.0,13.0) years in the AFLEP group and 8.5(7.0,13.0) years in the temporary pacemaker group(P=0.292). Lead vegetation diameter was (8.2±2.4)mm in the AFLEP group and (9.1±3.0)mm in the temporary pacemaker group. Lead removal was successful in all patients. The follow-up time in the AFLEP group was 23.0(20.5, 25.5) months, and the temporary pacemaker group was 17.0(14.5, 18.5) months. In the temporary pacemaker group, there were 2 cases (10.0%) of lead dislocation, 2 cases (10.0%) of sensory dysfunction, 2 cases (10.0%) of pacing dysfunction, and 2 cases (10.0%) of death. In the AFLEP group, there were 2 cases of abnormal pacing function, which improved after adjusting the output voltage of the pacemaker, there was no lead dislocation, abnormal perception and death. Femoral vein access was used in 8 patients (40.0%) in the temporary pacemaker group, and 4 patients developed lower extremity deep venous thrombosis. There was no deep venous thrombosis in the AFLEP group. The transition treatment time was significantly longer in the AFLEP group than in the temporary pacemaker group (19.5(16.0, 25.8) days vs. 14.0(12.0, 16.8) days, P=0.001). During the follow-up period, there were no reinfections with newly implanted pacemakers in the AFLEP group, and reinfection occurred in 2 patients (10.0%) in the temporary pacemaker group. Conclusions: Bridge therapy with AFLEP for patients with infective endocarditis after lead removal and before permanent pacemaker implantation is feasible and safe. Compared with temporary pacemaker, AFLEP is safer in the implantation process and more stable with lower lead dislocation rate, less sensory and pacing dysfunction.
Humans ; Male ; Bridge Therapy ; Feasibility Studies ; Pacemaker, Artificial ; Endocarditis, Bacterial/etiology* ; Electrodes ; Device Removal

Inflatable penile prostheses are an important tool in the treatment of medically refractory erectile dysfunction. One of the major complications associated with these prostheses is infections, which ultimately require device explanation and placement of a new device. Over the past several decades, significant work has been done to reduce infection rates and optimize treatment strategies to reduce patient morbidity. This article reviews the current state of knowledge surrounding penile prosthesis infections, with attention to the evidence for methods to prevent infection and best practices for device reimplantation.
Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use* ; Anti-Infective Agents, Local/therapeutic use* ; Antibiotic Prophylaxis/methods* ; Bandages ; Carrier State/drug therapy* ; Chlorhexidine/therapeutic use* ; Coated Materials, Biocompatible ; Device Removal ; Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology* ; Erectile Dysfunction/surgery* ; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections/therapy* ; Hair Removal/methods* ; Humans ; Immunocompromised Host/immunology* ; Male ; Penile Implantation/methods* ; Penile Prosthesis ; Preoperative Care/methods* ; Prosthesis-Related Infections/therapy* ; Reoperation ; Risk Factors ; Spinal Cord Injuries/epidemiology* ; Staphylococcal Infections/therapy* ; Staphylococcus aureus ; Staphylococcus epidermidis ; Surgical Drapes ; Surgical Instruments ; Surgical Wound Infection/therapy*

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to present experiences in localization and removal of non-palpable subdermal contraceptive implants with ultrasonography. METHODS: Medical records from January 1, 2016, to April 30, 2018, were retrospectively reviewed for 21 patients who were referred to a single institution and had an impalpable implant despite following the removal instruction. In all the cases, more than one attempt was made to remove the implant before referral. The rod was detected using radiography and ultrasonography. In all the cases, localization of the single implant was achieved with ultrasonography. The distal depth of the rod was measured, and skin marking was made following the echogenicity. The implants were subsequently removed under anesthesia. RESULTS: In 18 cases, the rods were localized using ultrasonography and successfully removed under local anesthesia. In the other three cases, removal with local anesthesia failed. Although the rod was detected successful with ultrasonography, the implants were removed under general anesthesia in the operating room. The depth from skin to rod, measured with ultrasonography, was >12.0 mm in all the cases and located deep in the muscular layer in the failure cases. The depth of the implants positively correlated with the time spent for removal (r=0.525; P=0.015). CONCLUSION: High frequency ultrasonography is a highly accurate tool for localization and measurement of the skin-to-rod depth. It is also useful for removing non-palpable implants. If the depth of the implant is >12.0 mm, removal of the implant in the operating room under general anesthesia is recommended.
Anesthesia ; Anesthesia, General ; Anesthesia, Local ; Contraception ; Device Removal ; Humans ; Medical Records ; Operating Rooms ; Radiography ; Referral and Consultation ; Retrospective Studies ; Skin ; Ultrasonography

BACKGROUND: It is uncommon for patients who have received a permanent implant to remove the spinal cord stimulator (SCS) after discontinuation of medication in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) due to their completely painless state. This study evaluated CRPS patients who successfully removed their SCSs. METHODS: This 10-year retrospective study was performed on patients who had received the permanent implantation of an SCS and had removed it 6 months after discontinuation of stimulation, while halting all medications for neuropathic pain. Age, sex, duration of implantation, site and type of CRPS, and their return to work were compared between the removal and non-removal groups. RESULTS: Five (12.5%, M/F = 4/1) of 40 patients (M/F = 33/7) successfully removed the permanent implant. The mean age was younger in the removal group (27.2 ± 6.4 vs. 43.5 ± 10.7 years, P < 0.01). The mean duration of implantation in the removal group was 34.4 ± 18.2 months. Two of 15 patients (13.3%) and 3 of 25 patients (12%) who had upper and lower extremity pain, respectively, had removed the implant. The implants could be removed in 5 of 27 patients (18.5%) with CRPS type 1 (P < 0.01). All 5 patients (100%) who removed their SCS returned to work, while only 5 of 35 (14.3%) in the non-removal group did (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Even though this study had limited data, younger patients with CRPS type 1 could remove their SCSs within a 5-year period and return to work with complete pain relief.
Age Factors ; Device Removal ; Extremities ; Humans ; Lower Extremity ; Neuralgia ; Retrospective Studies ; Return to Work ; Spinal Cord Stimulation ; Spinal Cord

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether restoration of range of motion (ROM) could be achieved by implant removal after natural bone healing and consolidation of fractured vertebrae and examine whether early removal of the implant could maximize restoration of ROM. METHODS: This study included 30 cases of thoracolumbar fractures without neurological deficit requiring surgery (nine cases of flexion-distraction injuries and 21 cases of burst fractures). Percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) was performed at the fractured vertebrae and one level above and one level below the fracture level. Pedicle screws were removed at an average of 12 months after surgery upon healing of fractured vertebrae. The following radiological and clinical findings were evaluated: restoration of anterior vertebral height ratio (AVHR), Cobb angle (CA), ROM, and complications. Sixteen patients who were checked for ROM were divided into two groups based on the time of implant removal: nine patients within 12 months and seven patients after 12 months. Restoration of vertebral height loss and ROM were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: At the final follow-up, significant pain relief and restoration of AVHR and CA were achieved in patients who underwent PPSF. Patients who had implant removed within 12 months after surgery had better ROM recovery than those who had implant removed after 12 months postoperatively. There were no significant differences in AVHR and CA between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: PPSF followed by implant removal after healing of fractured body appears to be effective in achieving restoration of ROM. In our study, early removal of implant within 12 months after surgery was associated with better achievement of ROM than removal after 12 months. In addition, there were no significant differences in restoration of vertebral height between the two groups.
Device Removal ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; Kyphosis ; Pedicle Screws ; Range of Motion, Articular ; Spinal Fractures ; Spine

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to measure and compare the removal torques of different cements applied in attachments of zirconia restorations on titanium (Ti) abutments fitted with retrievable cement-type slot (RCS) on the lingual side for the better retrievablity by use of a slot driver. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three types of cements were used in the experiment: two permanent cements in RelyX™ U200 (RU) (3M ESPE) which is a resin cement and FujiCem™ (FC) (GC) which is a resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and a temporary cement in Freegenol™ temporary cement (TC) (GC). Measurements of removal torques were conducted as follows; an attached sample was fixed on the equipment customized for the experiment; a slot driver was connected to a MGT12 (Mark-10 Corp.), a torque measurement instrument; the sample had the driver fitted to its RCS and then was rotated until the it was removed; and finally, the maximum torque value was recorded. RESULT: As for the removal torque measurement results, the average values were 47.9±2.6 Ncm for RU, 43.4±1.5 Ncm for FC, and 20.9±1.0 Ncm for TC. The statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis test yielded the significance probability of P < 0.05 (P=0.002), which confirmed the presence of significant differences between the three groups. CONCLUSION: All three cements exhibit clinically acceptable levels of removal torque when applied to an upper zirconia implant restoration fitted with a lingual slot, with RU and FC, the two permanent cements, having the significantly higher values than that of TC, the temporary cement.
Dental Implants ; Device Removal ; Glass Ionomer Cements ; Resin Cements ; Titanium ; Torque

A 43-year-old man who had had a history of atrial septal defect (ASD) device closure 31 months previously presented with abrupt chest and back pain along with progressive cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest. After resuscitation, he was diagnosed with cardiac tamponade. Diagnostic and therapeutic surgical exploration revealed left atrium (LA) perforation due to LA roof erosion from a deficient aortic rim. Device removal, primary repair of the LA perforation site, and ASD patch closure were performed successfully. The postoperative course was uneventful. The patient was discharged after 6 weeks of empirical antibiotic therapy without any other significant complications.
Adult ; Back Pain ; Cardiac Tamponade ; Device Removal ; Heart Arrest ; Heart Atria ; Heart Septal Defects, Atrial* ; Humans ; Resuscitation ; Septal Occluder Device ; Shock, Cardiogenic ; Thorax

When a revision surgery related with removal of failed interbody cage is required, going through the previous passage can lead to a higher risk of neurological deficits or incidental dural injuries. Recently, the lateral approach has become a popular method instead of the conventional anterior or posterior approaches. The lateral approach is also useful method to remove failed interbody cage previously placed and re-do interbody fusion with lower risks compared to revision surgery via previous passage. However, there is still some difficulty in retrieving the interbody cage from the intervertebral space because of no spacious passage, subsidence, and uncontrolled movable cage. In this study, we introduce our experience that we removed failed interbody cage more easily with only the simple additional steps of making a taphole and fixing the cage using a thread-tipped stick.
Device Removal ; Methods ; Reoperation

OBJECTIVE: Although previous research has suggested that risk for reoperation among hysteroscopic sterilization (HS) patients is more than ten times higher than for patients undergoing standard laparoscopic tubal ligation, little has been reported about these subsequent procedures. METHODS: This descriptive cohort study used a confidential online questionnaire to gather data from women (n=3,803) who volunteered information on HS followed by device removal surgery performed due to new symptoms developing after Essure placement. RESULTS: In this sample, mean age was 35.6 years and women undergoing hysterectomy after HS comprised 64.9% (n=2,468). Median interval between HS and hysterectomy was 3.7 (interquartile range, 3.9) years and mean age at hysterectomy was 36.3 years. Some patients (n=1,035) sought removal of HS devices and fallopian tubes only, while other miscellaneous gynecological procedures were also occasionally performed for Essure-associated symptoms. When data from all patients who had any post-Essure surgery besides hysterectomy were aggregated (e.g., device removal +“other” cases, n=1,335) and compared to those cases undergoing hysterectomy, mean age was significantly lower than for the hysterectomy group (34.4 vs. 36.3 years, respectively; P<0.01); uterus-conserving surgeries were also typically performed significantly earlier than hysterectomy (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: This investigation is the first to characterize specific gynecological operations after Essure, and suggests that the predominant surgical answer to HS complaints is hysterectomy for many women. Dissatisfaction with HS may represent an important indication for hysterectomy and additional study is needed to quantify this phenomenon.
Cohort Studies ; Contraception ; Device Removal ; Fallopian Tubes ; Female ; Humans ; Hysterectomy ; Reoperation ; Sterilization* ; Sterilization, Tubal

Summary of Event: A transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) stent (Viatorr) was misplaced into main portal vein and superior mesenteric vein. This misplaced covered stent was then successfully retrieved using the rigid endobronchial forceps. Teaching Point: Before release the covered portion of the TIPS stent (Viatorr), it is necessary to confirm the position of uncovered portion in portal vein and covered portion in parenchymal tract. The endobronchial forceps technique is a safe and efficient method for retrieving a misplaced TIPS stent.
Device Removal ; Mesenteric Veins ; Methods ; Portal Vein ; Portasystemic Shunt, Surgical* ; Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic ; Stents* ; Surgical Instruments*