Search

81 patients with 84 complete (55) or incomplete (29) nonviable amputations of the thumb were studied to compare the survival rate and functional results between the two groups. 3 of these patients had bilateral thumb amputations. Of the 55 completely amputated thumbs, 43 survived (78 percent), while of the 29 incomplete nonviable amputations, 25 were salvaged (86 percent). Excluding patients with an amputation at the level of or distal to the interphalangeal (IP) joint, motion at the IP joint which did not exceed 40 degrees flexion even when a secondary procedure was done, did not show a statistical difference between the 2 groups. Average two-point discrimination was 14 mm for patients with complete amputations and 11 mm for patients with incomplete nonviable amputations. We conclude that incomplete nonviable amputations of the thumb are associated with a higher survival rate and better sensibility than complete thumb amputations, while motion at the IP joint does not differ between the two groups of patients. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl

Purpose: To compare contrast material enhancement of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) with intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (US) versus that with preoperative gadolinium- enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using real-time fusion imaging. Materials and Methods: Ten patients with GBM were retrospectively identified by using routinely collected, anonymized data. Navigated contrastenhanced US was performed after intravenous administration of contrast material before tumor resection. All patients underwent tumor excision with navigated intraoperative US guidance with use of fusion imaging between real-time intraoperative US and preoperative MR imaging. With use of fusion imaging, glioblastoma contrast enhancement at contrast-enhanced US (regarding location, morphologic features, margins, dimensions, and pattern) was compared with that at gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging. Results: Fusion imaging for virtual navigation enabled matching of realtime contrast-enhanced US scans to corresponding coplanar preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR images in all cases, with a positional discrepancy of less than 2 mm. Contrast enhancement of gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced US was superimposable in all cases with regard to location, margins, dimensions, and morphologic features. The qualitative analysis of contrast enhancement pattern demonstrated a similar distribution in contrast-enhanced US and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging in nine patients: Seven lesions showed peripheral inhomogeneous ring enhancement, and two lesions showed a prevalent nodular pattern. In one patient, the contrast enhancement pattern differed between the two modalities: Contrast- enhanced US showed enhancement of the entire bulk of the tumor, whereas gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging demonstrated peripheral contrast enhancement. Conclusion: Glioblastoma contrast enhancement with contrast-enhanced US is superimposable on that provided with preoperative gadolinium- enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging regarding location, margins, morphologic features, and dimensions, with a similar enhancement pattern in most cases. Thus, contrast-enhanced US is of potential use in the surgical management of GBM.