METHODS: This study is a review of 419 children (≤18 years) with RHD who underwent primary isolated MV surgery between 1992 and 2015, which comprised MV repair (336 patients; 80.2%) and MV replacement (83 patients; 19.8%). The replacement group included mechanical MV replacements (MMVRs) (n = 69 patients; 16.5%) and bioprosthetic MV replacements (n = 14 patients; 3.3%). The mean age with standard deviation at the time of operation was 12.5 ± 3.5 (2-18) years. Mitral regurgitation (MR) was predominant in 390 (93.1%) patients, and 341 (81.4%) patients showed ≥3+ MR. The modified Carpentier reconstructive techniques were used for MV repair.
RESULTS: Overall early mortality was 1.7% (7 patients). The mean follow-up was 5.6 years (range 0-22.3 years; 94.7% complete). Survival of patients who underwent repair was 93.9% both at 10 and 20 years, which was superior than that of replacement (P
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty surviving patients with expandable endoprosthesis from 2006 till 2015 were scored using Musculoskeletal Tumour Society (MSTS) outcomes instrument and reviewed retrospectively for range of motion of respected joints, limb length discrepancy, number of surgeries performed, complications and oncological outcomes. Patients with less than 2 years of follow-up were excluded from this study.
RESULTS: Forty-five percentage patients reached skeletal maturity with initial growing endoprosthesis and 25% of patients were revised to adult modular prosthesis. One hundred fifty-seven surgeries were performed over the 9-year period. The average MSTS score was 90.83%. The mortality rate was 10% within 5 years due to advanced disease. Infection and implant failure rate was 15% each. The event-free survival was 50% and overall survival rate was 90%.
CONCLUSION: There is no single best option for reconstruction in skeletally immature. This study demonstrates a favourable functional and survival outcome of paediatric patients with expandable endoprosthesis. The excellent MSTS functional scores reflect that patients were satisfied and adjusted well to activities of daily living following surgery despite the complications.
METHODS: We performed a comparative prospective cross-sectional study assessing the impact of intravesical stent position on the quality of life in 46 patients with a ureteral stent. This is done using the Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ).
RESULTS: 52.5% of patients had an ipsilateral positioned intravesical stent, while the remaining had their stent positioned contralaterally. Intravesical stent position significantly influenced the quality of life. The USSQ score was worse for the contralateral group. Subscore analysis found that urinary symptoms and body pain index contribute significantly to the morbidity. Majority of patients in the ipsilateral group reported no discomfort as compared to the contralateral group.
CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the impact of intravesical stent position on the quality of life in the Asian population. Intravesical stent position has a significant influence on patient's morbidity and quality of life in particular towards their urinary irritative symptoms and body pain. It is imperative to ensure correct distal placement of ureteric stent that does not cross the midline to the contralateral site. We believe that the USSQ should be used in daily clinical practice in assessing the symptoms related to indwelling ureteric stents.