-
International Journal of Gynaecology... Jan 2019Extending contraceptive implant duration of use increases accessibility by maximizing the lifetime of devices.
BACKGROUND
Extending contraceptive implant duration of use increases accessibility by maximizing the lifetime of devices.
OBJECTIVES
To review the contraceptive efficacy during extended use of progestin implants.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles in any language, 1996-2017, utilizing terms for devices and contraceptive efficacy.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case-control studies were included; abstracts, posters, and presentations were excluded. Studies evaluating Norplant and implants currently in pre-marketing trials were excluded.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Titles and abstracts of articles were reviewed; those that met inclusion and exclusion criteria underwent full text review and data abstraction.
MAIN RESULTS
The search identified 2951 articles; six met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Five studies evaluated the etonogestrel implant (Implanon), and one the levonorgestrel implant (Jadelle). One RCT randomized to method, not duration; the remaining studies were prospective cohort studies. Three studies analyzed efficacy among women beyond currently approved duration separately. All studies were of poor to fair quality by United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPTF) grading. Limitations include lack of generalizability and control of important confounders.
CONCLUSION
These studies provide limited data for extended duration of contraceptive implants.
Topics: Adult; Case-Control Studies; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Desogestrel; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Levonorgestrel; Progestins; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30343503
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.12696 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the association between the intake of systemic medications that may affect bone metabolism and their subsequent impact on implant failures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted. Implant failure (IF) was the primary outcome, while biological/mechanical and the causes/timing associated with IF were set as secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses for the binary outcome IF and odds ratio were performed to investigate the association with medications.
RESULTS
A final selection of 17 articles was screened for qualitative assessment. As such, five studies focused on evaluating the association of implant failure and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), two on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), two on proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), seven on bisphosphonates (BPs), and one on anti-hypertensives (AHTNs). For PPIs, the fixed effect model estimated a difference of IF rates of 4.3%, indicating significantly higher IF rates in the test compared to the control group (p < 0.5). Likewise, for SSRIs, the IF was shown to be significantly higher in the individuals taking SSRIs (p < 0.5) as estimated a difference of 7.5%. No subset meta-analysis could be conducted for AHTNs medications as only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, which revealed an increased survival rate of AHTN medication. None of the other medications yielded significance.
CONCLUSIONS
The present systematic review showed an association of PPIs and SSRIs with an increased implant failure rate. Hence, clinicians considering implant therapy should be aware of possible medication-related implant failures.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Antihypertensive Agents; Bone and Bones; Databases, Factual; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Implants; Dental Restoration Failure; Diphosphonates; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors
PubMed: 30328197
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13137 -
Clinical Oral Implants Research Oct 2018A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
A considerable portion of the adult population has received and/or is receiving treatment with antiresorptive drugs (ARDs). It is thus relevant to assess possible side effects of ARD intake in connection to various aspects of implant therapy. The aim of this study was to answer the focused question "In patients with systemic intake of ARDs, what is the outcome and complication rate of implant therapy including associated bone grafting procedures comparing to patients without systemic intake of ARDs?"
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Original studies fulfilled predefined inclusion criteria (e.g., case series, cohort studies, case-control studies, and controlled and/or randomized controlled clinical trials; retro- or prospective design; and ≥10 patients with systemic intake of ARDs). Various patient-, medication-, and intervention-related parameters [i.e., implant loss, grafting procedure complication/failure, peri-implant marginal bone levels/loss, medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws (MRONJ), and peri-implantitis] were extracted, and meta-analyses and quality assessment were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-four studies with bisphosphonate (BP) intake (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and seven studies on hormone replacement therapy (HRT), including ≥10 patients, and controls not taking the medication were identified. Furthermore, seven studies on MRONJ associated with implants were included. Meta-analyses based on four studies reporting on patient level and eight studies reporting on implant level showed no significant differences in terms of implant loss between patients on BPs (mainly low dose for osteoporosis treatment) and controls. Furthermore, low-dose BP intake did not compromise peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on two studies, no negative effect of HRT was observed on the implant level, while HRT appeared to exert a marginally significant negative effect regarding implant survival on the patient level and regarding peri-implant marginal bone levels. Based on six studies reporting single-patient data, MRONJ in patients on BP for osteoporosis appeared in 70% of the cases >36 months after start of drug intake, while in patients with cancer, MRONJ appeared in 64% of the cases ≤36 months after first BP intake.
CONCLUSION
Low-dose oral BP intake for osteoporosis treatment, in general, does not compromise implant therapy, that is, patients on ARDs do not lose more implants nor get more implant-related complications/failures comparing to implant patients without BP intake. There is almost no information available on the possible effect on implant therapy of high-dose BPs or other widely used ARDs (e.g., denosumab), or on the success or safety of bone grafting procedures. Patients with high-dose ARD intake for management of malignancies, patients on oral BP over a longer period of time, and patients with comorbidities should be considered as high-risk patients for MRONJ.
Topics: Bone Density Conservation Agents; Bone Transplantation; Dental Implantation, Endosseous; Dental Restoration Failure; Humans
PubMed: 30306695
DOI: 10.1111/clr.13282 -
International Journal of Implant... Jul 2018The literature states that Strontium (Sr) is able to simultaneously stimulate bone formation and suppress bone resorption. Recent animal studies suggest that the... (Review)
Review
The literature states that Strontium (Sr) is able to simultaneously stimulate bone formation and suppress bone resorption. Recent animal studies suggest that the systemic administration of Sr, in the form of strontium ranelate (SRAN), would enhance the osseointegration of implants. The purpose of the present study was to undertake a systematic review on animal studies evaluating the systemic administration of Sr to enhance the osseointegration of titanium implants and the remodeling of bone grafts. The MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus bibliographic databases were searched from 1950 to October 2017 for reports on the use of systemic and non-radioactive Sr to enhance the osseointegration of titanium implants and the remodeling of bone grafts in animals. The search strategy was restricted to English language publications using the combined terms: "strontium" and "implant or graft or biomaterial or bone substitute". Five studies were included, all related to the systemic administration of Sr in the form SRAN, and its effects on osseointegration of titanium implants. No studies on the use of SRAN-based therapy to enhance the remodeling of bone grafts were found. The studies differed notably with respect to the study population (healthy female rats, healthy male rats, and female rats with induced osteoporosis) and SRAN dose (ranging from 500 to 1000 mg/kg/day). Results were diverse, but a tendency suggesting positive influence of systemic SRAN administration on the osseointegration of titanium implants was observed. No major side-effects due to strontium administration were reported. Systemic Sr administration, in the form of SRAN, seems to enhance peri-implant bone quality and implant osseointegration in animals, however, at a moderate extent. Further studies, evaluating both the effects of this drug on implant osseointegration and the risk/benefit of its use, are needed to provide a rationale of this therapeutic approach.
PubMed: 30014305
DOI: 10.1186/s40729-018-0132-8 -
Acta Medica Portuguesa May 2018Non-infectious uveitis is a heterogeneous collection of inflammatory eye diseases and is one of the most important causes of blindness among active adults in developed...
Non-infectious uveitis is a heterogeneous collection of inflammatory eye diseases and is one of the most important causes of blindness among active adults in developed countries. Inflammation control is crucial in the prevention of ocular structural and functional damage. Regarding acute inflammatory control, corticosteroids are the mainstay of treatment. Several types of intra-ocular corticosteroids have been used with the aim of enhanced efficacy compared to their topical or peri-ocular administration, while minimizing its adverse effects associated with the systemic administration. The purpose of this Cochrane review was to synthetize the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid implants in comparison with standard treatment. Due to the heterogeneity in the design of the studies and outcome measures assessed, authors could not conclude that implants are superior to traditional systemic therapy in Non-infectious uveitis. The safety analysis suggested increased risks of post-implant surgery for cataract and high intraocular pressure compared with standard-of-care therapy.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Chronic Disease; Databases, Bibliographic; Drug Implants; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Uveitis
PubMed: 29916354
DOI: 10.20344/amp.10660 -
European Journal of Preventive... Jul 2018Aims The association between progestin-only contraceptive (POC) use and the risk of various cardiometabolic outcomes has rarely been studied. We performed a systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Aims The association between progestin-only contraceptive (POC) use and the risk of various cardiometabolic outcomes has rarely been studied. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of POC use on cardiometabolic outcomes including venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension and diabetes. Methods and results Nineteen observational studies (seven cohort and 12 case-control) were included in this systematic review. Of those, nine studies reported the risk of venous thromboembolism, six reported the risk of myocardial infarction, six reported the risk of stroke, three reported the risk of hypertension and two studies reported the risk of developing diabetes with POC use. The pooled adjusted relative risks (RRs) for venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and stroke for oral POC users versus non-users based on the random effects model were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.62), 0.98 (95% CI 0.66-1.47) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.72-1.44), respectively. Stratified analysis by route of administration showed that injectable POC with a RR of 2.62 (95% CI 1.74-3.94), but not oral POCs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.7-1.62), was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. A decreased risk of venous thromboembolism in a subgroup of women using an intrauterine levonorgestrel device was observed with a RR of 0.53 (95% CI 0.32-0.89). No effect of POC use on blood pressure was found, but there was an indication for an increased risk of diabetes with injectable POCs, albeit non-significant. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that oral POC use is not associated with an increased risk of developing various cardiometabolic outcomes, whereas injectable POC use might increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Cardiovascular Diseases; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Diabetes Mellitus; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Injections; Middle Aged; Progestins; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Venous Thromboembolism; Young Adult
PubMed: 29745237
DOI: 10.1177/2047487318774847 -
PloS One 2018Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) were introduced to overcome some of the limitations of drug-eluting stent (DES) for PCI. Data regarding the clinical outcomes of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds (BVS) were introduced to overcome some of the limitations of drug-eluting stent (DES) for PCI. Data regarding the clinical outcomes of the BVS versus DES beyond 2 years are emerging.
OBJECTIVE
To study mid-term outcomes.
METHODS
We searched online databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase, CENTRAL), several websites, meeting presentations and scientific session abstracts until August 8th, 2017 for studies comparing Absorb BVS with second-generation DES. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR) and definite/probable device thrombosis. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived using a random effects model.
RESULTS
Ten studies, seven randomized controlled trials and three propensity-matched observational studies, with a total of 7320 patients (BVS n = 4007; DES n = 3313) and a median follow-up duration of 30.5 months, were included. Risk of TLF was increased for BVS-treated patients (OR 1.34 [95% CI: 1.12-1.60], p = 0.001, I2 = 0%). This was also the case for all myocardial infarction (1.58 [95% CI: 1.27-1.96], p<0.001, I2 = 0%), TLR (1.48 [95% CI: 1.19-1.85], p<0.001, I2 = 0%) and definite/probable device thrombosis (of 2.82 (95% CI: 1.86-3.89], p<0.001 and I2 = 40.3%). This did not result in a difference in all-cause mortality (0.78 [95% CI: 0.58-1.04], p = 0.09, I2 = 0%). OR for very late (>1 year) device thrombosis was 6.10 [95% CI: 1.40-26.65], p = 0.02).
CONCLUSION
At mid-term follow-up, BVS was associated with an increased risk of TLF, MI, TLR and definite/probable device thrombosis, but this did not result in an increased risk of all-cause mortality.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Coronary Thrombosis; Drug-Eluting Stents; Everolimus; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; Risk Factors; Tissue Scaffolds; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29742143
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0197119 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The combination of steroid and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal therapeutic agents could potentially have synergistic effects for treating diabetic macular oedema (DMO). On the one hand, if combined treatment is more effective than monotherapy, there would be significant implications for improving patient outcomes. Conversely, if there is no added benefit of combination therapy, then people could be potentially exposed to unnecessary local or systemic side effects.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of intravitreal agents that block vascular endothelial growth factor activity (anti-VEGF agents) plus intravitreal steroids versus monotherapy with macular laser, intravitreal steroids or intravitreal anti-VEGF agents for managing DMO.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (which contains the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (2018, Issue 1); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; LILACS; the ISRCTN registry; ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP. The date of the search was 21 February 2018.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of intravitreal anti-VEGF combined with intravitreal steroids versus intravitreal anti-VEGF alone, intravitreal steroids alone or macular laser alone for managing DMO. We included people with DMO of all ages and both sexes. We also included trials where both eyes from one participant received different treatments.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.Two authors independently reviewed all the titles and abstracts identified from the electronic and manual searches against the inclusion criteria. Our primary outcome was change in best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) between baseline and one year. Secondary outcomes included change in central macular thickness (CMT), economic data and quality of life. We considered adverse effects including intraocular inflammation, raised intraocular pressure (IOP) and development of cataract.
MAIN RESULTS
There were eight RCTs (703 participants, 817 eyes) that met our inclusion criteria with only three studies reporting outcomes at one year. The studies took place in Iran (3), USA (2), Brazil (1), Czech Republic (1) and South Korea (1). Seven studies used the unlicensed anti-VEGF agent bevacizumab and one study used licensed ranibizumab. The study that used licensed ranibizumab had a unique design compared with the other studies in that included eyes had persisting DMO after anti-VEGF monotherapy and received three monthly doses of ranibizumab prior to allocation. The anti-VEGF agent was combined with intravitreal triamcinolone in six studies and with an intravitreal dexamethasone implant in two studies. The comparator group was anti-VEGF alone in all studies; two studies had an additional steroid monotherapy arm, another study had an additional macular laser photocoagulation arm. Whilst we judged these studies to be at low risk of bias for most domains, at least one domain was at unclear risk in all studies.When comparing anti-VEGF/steroid with anti-VEGF monotherapy as primary therapy for DMO, we found no meaningful clinical difference in change in BCVA (mean difference (MD) -2.29 visual acuity (VA) letters, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.03 to 1.45; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD 0.20 μm, 95% CI -37.14 to 37.53; 3 RCTs; 188 eyes; low-certainty evidence) at one year. There was very low-certainty evidence on intraocular inflammation from 8 studies, with one event in the anti-VEGF/steroid group (313 eyes) and two events in the anti-VEGF group (322 eyes). There was a greater risk of raised IOP (Peto odds ratio (OR) 8.13, 95% CI 4.67 to 14.16; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) and development of cataract (Peto OR 7.49, 95% CI 2.87 to 19.60; 635 eyes; 8 RCTs; moderate-certainty evidence) in eyes receiving anti-VEGF/steroid compared with anti-VEGF monotherapy. There was low-certainty evidence from one study of an increased risk of systemic adverse events in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the anti-VEGF alone group (Peto OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.86; 103 eyes).One study compared anti-VEGF/steroid versus macular laser therapy. At one year investigators did not report a meaningful difference between the groups in change in BCVA (MD 4.00 VA letters 95% CI -2.70 to 10.70; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence) or change in CMT (MD -16.00 μm, 95% CI -68.93 to 36.93; 80 eyes; low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence suggesting an increased risk of cataract in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 4.58, 95% 0.99 to 21.10, 100 eyes) and an increased risk of elevated IOP in the anti-VEGF/steroid group compared with the macular laser group (Peto OR 9.49, 95% CI 2.86 to 31.51; 100 eyes).One study provided very low-certainty evidence comparing anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid monotherapy at one year. There was no evidence of a meaningful difference in BCVA between treatments at one year (MD 0 VA letters, 95% CI -6.1 to 6.1, low-certainty evidence). Likewise, there was no meaningful difference in the mean CMT at one year (MD - 9 μm, 95% CI -39.87μm to 21.87μm between the anti-VEGF/steroid group and the steroid group. There was very low-certainty evidence on raised IOP at one year comparing the anti-VEGF/steroid versus steroid groups (Peto OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.55).No included study reported impact of treatment on patients' quality of life or economic data. None of the studies reported any cases of endophthalmitis.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Combination of intravitreal anti-VEGF plus intravitreal steroids does not appear to offer additional visual benefit compared with monotherapy for DMO; at present the evidence for this is of low-certainty. There was an increased rate of cataract development and raised intraocular pressure in eyes treated with anti-VEGF plus steroid versus anti-VEGF alone. Patients were exposed to potential side effects of both these agents without reported additional benefit. The majority of the evidence comes from studies of bevacizumab and triamcinolone used as primary therapy for DMO. There is limited evidence from studies using licensed intravitreal anti-VEGF agents plus licensed intravitreal steroid implants with at least one year follow-up. It is not known whether treatment response is different in eyes that are phakic and pseudophakic at baseline.
Topics: Bevacizumab; Dexamethasone; Diabetic Retinopathy; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Intravitreal Injections; Macula Lutea; Macular Edema; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ranibizumab; Receptors, Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor; Triamcinolone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 29669176
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011599.pub2 -
Medicine Nov 2017Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents versus first-generation durable polymer drug-eluting stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
Even if drug-eluting stents (DES) showed beneficial effects in patients with coronary artery diseases (CADs), limitations have been observed with the first-generation durable polymer DES (DP-DES). Recently, biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) have been approved to be used as an alternative to DP-DES, with potential benefits. We aimed to systematically compare BP-DES with the first-generation DP-DES using a large number of randomized patients.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BP-DES with first-generation DP-DES. The main endpoints were the long-term (≥2 years) adverse clinical outcomes that were reported with these 2 types of DES. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the analysis was carried out by RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS
Twelve trials with a total number of 13,480 patients (7730 and 5750 patients were treated by BP-DES and first-generation DP-DES, respectively) were included. During a long-term follow-up period of ≥2 years, mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were not significantly different between these 2 groups with OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07; P = .16, I = 0%, OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.45-2.27; P = .98, I = 0%, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.75-1.11; P = .37, I = 0% and OR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.44-1.67; P = .65, I = 0%, respectively. Long-term total stent thrombosis (ST), definite ST, and probable ST were also not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES with OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.50-1.18; P = .22, I = 0%, OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.43-1.18; P = .19, I = 0% and OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.08; P = .53, I = 6%, respectively.
CONCLUSION
Long-term mortality, MI, TLR, MACEs, and ST were not significantly different between BP-DES and the first-generation DP-DES. However, the follow-up period was restricted to only 3 years in this analysis.
Topics: Absorbable Implants; Coronary Artery Disease; Drug-Eluting Stents; Humans; Polymers; Postoperative Complications; Prosthesis Design; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29382011
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000008878 -
World Neurosurgery Mar 2018Despite demonstrable safety and efficacy of subdermal contraceptive implants (SCIs), both insertion and removal of SCIs in the arm have been associated with... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite demonstrable safety and efficacy of subdermal contraceptive implants (SCIs), both insertion and removal of SCIs in the arm have been associated with neurovascular complications. The aim of this study was to investigate type and prognosis of nerve injuries associated with SCIs.
METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of 4 electronic databases for studies pertaining to patients with nerve injury and concurrent SCI. Studies published between January 1987 and June 2017 were included. Implant location, damaged nerves, clinical presentation, preoperative imaging (x-ray, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging), neurologic evaluation (nerve conduction studies, electromyography), and treatment methods were reviewed. To outline management strategies, 2 illustrative cases of major nerve injury caused by SCI removal were presented.
RESULTS
We analyzed 10 studies including 12 patients. Fourteen nerve injuries in 12 patients were reported during SCI insertion (n = 1) and removal (n = 11). Medial antebrachial cutaneous (n = 5) and median (n = 5) nerves were primarily affected. Neuropathic pain was the main symptom. Primary reasons for nerve injury were pulling or grasping of the nerve (n = 9) after mistaking it for the implant. Neurapraxia (n = 7) was the most common lesion and was treated with implant removal and clinical surveillance (n = 6). Five patients completely recovered; the remaining patients continued to have motor and/or sensory deficit at mean follow-up of 0.7 year (range, 0-2 years).
CONCLUSIONS
Nerve injuries related to SCIs are rare but potentially serious. For nonpalpable SCIs, a multidisciplinary approach, including practitioners with experience treating peripheral nerve injuries, is invaluable.
Topics: Adult; Arm; Contraceptive Agents, Female; Device Removal; Drug Implants; Female; Humans; Medical Errors; Neuralgia; Peripheral Nerve Injuries
PubMed: 29309985
DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.160