Defying Standard Criteria for Digital Replantation: A Case Series

INTRODUCTION: There is much controversy regarding the current indications and contraindications for digital replantation. PRESENTATION OF CASE: Three patients with absolute contraindications for digital replantation according to classical criteria are presented (Case 1: multilevel amputation of the hand and fingers; Case 3: avulsion of the thumb; Case 4: index amputation proximal to the insertion of the flexor digitorum superficialis). In addition a patient with a very distal digital amputation (Case 2), whose indication for replantation is controversial is also presented. In all cases, the patients were replanted and showed good functional and aesthetical results. DISCUSSION: Most authors advocate that the classical indications for replantation have been validated by experience, are predicated on the potential for long-term function, and should be followed in most if not all cases. However, some surgeons have been adopting a more liberal attitude with good results. CONCLUSION: The clinical cases presented in this paper suggest that the standard criteria for digital replantation should not be followed rigidly but instead should be regarded as a general guide.

The Oncological and Functional Risks of the Organ Preservation Experimental Treatment Approach

We increasingly face conservative surgery for rectal cancer and even the so called ‘wait and see’ approach, as far as 10–20% patients can reach a complete pathological response at the time of surgery. But what can we say to our patients about risks? Standard surgery with mesorectal excision gives a <2% local recurrence with a post operative death rate of 2–8% (may reach 30% at 6 months in those over 85), but low AR has some deterioration in bowel function and in low cancer a permanent stoma may be required. Also a long-term impact on urinary and sexual function is possible. Distant metastasis rate seem to be identical in the standard and conservative approach. It is difficult to evaluate conservative approach because a not clear standardization of surgery for low rectal cancer. Rullier et al tried to clarify, and they found identical results for recurrence (5–9%), disease free survival (70%) at 5y for coloanal anastomosis and intersphinteric resection. Other series have found local recurrence higher than with standard approach and functional results may be worse and, in some situations, salvage therapy is compromised or has more complications. In this context, functional outcomes are very important but most studies are incomplete in measuring bowel function in the context of conservative approach. In 2005 Temple et al made a survey of 122/184 patient after sphinter preserving surgery and found a 96.9% of incomplete evacuation, 94.4% clustering, 93.2% food affecting frequency, 91.8% gas incontinence and proposed a systematic evaluation with a specific questionnaire. In which concerns ‘Wait and see’ approach for complete clinical responders, it was first advocated by Habr Gama for tumors up to 7cm, with a low locoregional failure of 4.6%, 5y overall survival 96%, 72% for disease free survival; one fifth of patients failed in the first year; a Dutch trial had identical results but others had worse recurrence rates; in other series 25% of patients could not be salvaged even with APR; 30% have subsequent metastatic disease what seems equal for ‘wait and see’ and operated patients. In a recent review Glynne Jones considers that all the evaluated ‘wait and see’ studies are heterogeneous in staging, inclusion criteria, design and follow up after chemoradiation and that there is the suggestion that patients who progress while under observation fare worse than those resected. He proposes long-term observational studies with more uniform inclusion criteria. We are now facing a moment where we may be more aggressive in early cancer and neoadjuvant treatment to be more conservative in the subsequent treatment but we need a better stratification of patients, better evaluation of results and more clear prognostic markers.

Spectrum and Frequency of GJB2 Mutations in a Cohort of 264 Portuguese Nonsyndromic Sensorineural Hearing Loss Patients

OBJECTIVE: To assess the spectrum and prevalence of mutations in the GJB2 gene in Portuguese nonsyndromic sensorineural hearing loss (NSSHL) patients. DESIGN: Sequencing of the coding region, basal promoter, exon 1, and donor splice site of the GJB2 gene; screening for the presence of the two common GJB6 deletions. STUDY SAMPLE: A cohort of 264 Portuguese NSSHL patients. RESULTS: At least one out of 21 different GJB2 variants was identified in 80 (30.2%) of the 264 patients analysed. Two mutant alleles were found in 53 (20%) of these probands, of which 83% (44/53) harboured at least one c.35delG allele. Twenty-seven (10.2%) of the probands harboured only one mutant allele. Subsequent analysis revealed that the GJB6 deletion del(GJB6-D13S1854) was present in at least 7.4% (2/27) of the patients carrying only one mutant GJB2 allele. Overall, one in five (55/264) of the patients were diagnosed as having DFNB1-related NSSHL, of which the vast majority (53/55) harboured only GJB2 mutations. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides clear demonstration that mutations in the GJB2 gene are an important cause of NSSHL in Portugal, thus representing a valuable indicator as regards therapeutical and rehabilitation options, as well as genetic counseling of these patients and their families.