Refine
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- surgical procedures (3) (remove)
Institute
- Medizin (3)
Background: A similar long-term stable clinical attachment level (CAL) of infrabony defects (IBDs) after regenerative treatment compared to control teeth would indicate a high level of stability resulting from the regenerative approach. Methods: Patients with a regeneratively treated IBD were screened 120 ± 12 months postoperatively for eligibility for study participation, and were included if complete baseline and 12-month examinations (plaque (PlI), periodontal probing depth (PPD), CAL) were available and a respective control tooth could be identified. Re-examination included clinical examination (PPD, CAL, PlI/GI, bleeding on probing, plaque control record, gingival bleeding index). Results: A total of 27 patients (16 females; age (median; lower/upper quartile): 57.0; 44.0/60.0 years; 6 smokers) contributed 27 IBDs (test), for each of which a control tooth was identified. Five test teeth (18.5%) were lost between 12 and 120 months. The remaining 22 test teeth revealed a significant CAL gain after 1 (2.5 mm; 1.0/4.0 mm, p < 0.0001) and 10 (2.5 mm; 0.5/3.5 mm, p < 0.0001) years, whereas control teeth were stable (1 year: 0.0 mm; 0.0/1.0 mm, p = 0.396; 10 years: 0.0 mm; −1.0/1.5 mm, p = 0.215). The study did not detect any significant CAL change between 1 and 10 years for test (−0.5 mm; −1.0/0.5 mm, p = 0.414) and control teeth (0.0 mm; −1.0/1.0 mm, p = 0.739). In 15 patients, test and control teeth revealed stable CAL values between 12 and 120 months. Conclusion: Regenerative treatment of IBDs exhibited stability comparable to non-surgically treated, periodontally reduced sites over a 10-year period.
Perioperative management for patients with von Willebrand disease: Defining the optimal approach
(2020)
von Willebrand disease (VWD) is the most common inherited bleeding disorder characterised by a quantitative or qualitative deficiency in von Willebrand factor (VWF). During invasive surgical procedures, patients with VWD require additional treatment to maintain haemostasis; however, due to the complexity of VWD, there is a lack of consensus on the optimal management. In the perioperative period, patients are usually treated with VWF and factor FVIII (FVIII)‐containing concentrates to provide an immediate haemostatic response to prevent excessive bleeding during both elective and emergency surgery. With the introduction of recombinant VWF (rVWF), there is a need for guidance on the use of the various VWF products in the perioperative period for all types of patients and surgeries. This review provides an overview of the current evidence for the surgical management of patients with VWD and, summarises the optimal treatment approach during the perioperative period, and highlights key unanswered questions and the research needed to address the evidence gaps.
Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE), caused by deficiency in C1-inhibitor (C1-INH), leads to unpredictable edema of subcutaneous tissues with potentially fatal complications. As surgery can be a trigger for edema episodes, current guidelines recommend preoperative prophylaxis with C1-INH or attenuated androgens in patients with HAE undergoing surgery. However, the risk of an HAE attack in patients without prophylaxis has not been quantified.
Objectives: This analysis examined rates of perioperative edema in patients with HAE not receiving prophylaxis.
Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of records of randomly selected patients with HAE type I or II treated at the Frankfurt Comprehensive Care Centre. These were examined for information about surgical procedures and the presence of perioperative angioedema.
Results: A total of 331 patients were included; 247 underwent 700 invasive procedures. Of these procedures, 335 were conducted in 144 patients who had not received prophylaxis at the time of surgery. Categories representing significant numbers of procedures were abdominal (n = 113), ENT (n = 71), and gynecological (n = 58) procedures. The rate of documented angioedema without prophylaxis across all procedures was 5.7%; in 24.8% of procedures, the presence of perioperative angioedema could not be excluded, leading to a maximum potential risk of 30.5%. Predictors of perioperative angioedema could not be identified.
Conclusion: The risk of perioperative angioedema in patients with HAE type I or II without prophylaxis undergoing surgical procedures ranged from 5.7% to 30.5% (CI 3.5–35.7%). The unpredictability of HAE episodes supports current international treatment recommendations to consider short-term prophylaxis for all HAE patients undergoing surgery.