Khedr, Ahmed E.

BACKGROUND: Pectus deformities are common chest wall abnormalities, with surgical correction recommended for severe cases. Female patients undergoing repair may have a history of breast implants or seek concurrent augmentation. This retrospective study examines clinical implications of pectus repair in patients with breast implants and provides recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of female patients undergoing pectus repair at Mayo Clinic Arizona (January 1, 2010 to February 1, 2025) was conducted. Outcomes and complications were analyzed in patients with and without breast implants. RESULTS: In total, 456 female patients were included (447 excavatum, 7 arcuatum, and 2 carinatum; median age 32.7). Most patients (78.5%) underwent primary minimally invasive repairs (MIRPE); 6.6% underwent primary hybrid MIRPE, 5.5% underwent redo MIRPE, and 9.4% underwent primary redo open and complex reconstructions. In total, 104 patients (22.8%) had a history of breast implants, with 68 patients having breast implant-related procedures at the time of pectus surgery. At 12 months, the cumulative incidence of infection was significantly higher in patients with implants present at the time of pectus repair than in those without (8.8% vs 1.8%; log rank, p = 0.0015). A 4.9-fold increase in overall infection was seen in patients with indwelling or placed implants during pectus surgery. Deep infections were significantly more common in patients with implants (4.4%) than without (1.0%; p = 0.035). Similarly, superficial infections were more frequent in patients with implants (4.4%) than without (0.8%; p = 0.016). At 30 days, patients with implants had higher rates of infection (p = 0.032), pneumothorax (p = 0.008), and hematoma (p = 0.027), with no significant differences in other complications. CONCLUSIONS: Breast implants at the time of pectus repair were associated with increased risk of postoperative infection, pneumothorax, and hematoma. Removal of implants before pectus repair is recommended with delayed replacement, if desired.

Importance Pectus arcuatum is a rare anterior chest wall deformity that is often confused with excavatum, carinatum, or a mixed deformity. A complete understanding of its clinical and physiological basis will improve diagnostic accuracy and allow for standardized management. Objectives To gain a comprehensive understanding of pectus arcuatum, focusing on its nomenclatures, epidemiology, classification, pathophysiology, preoperative presentation and assessments, management options, and surgical outcomes. Evidence Review PubMed, Google Scholar, and subsequent reference searches were used to extract original studies addressing pectus arcuatum fully or partially. The searches were performed on February 2, 2025. Two independent reviewers screened articles based on preestablished inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality assessment was performed, but given the rarity of arcuatum and the limited, heterogeneous nature of available literature, none of the studies were excluded based on the level of evidence or quality assessments. Using a standardized data extraction form, results were synthesized and presented as a review with recommendations to guide clinical decision-making. Findings A total of 65 studies were included in the final review. Of those, 37 (56.9%) were cohort studies, 18 (27.7%) were case reports, 8 (12.3%) were case series, and 2 (3.1%) were technical reports. A total of 455 cases of pectus arcuatum were represented. Heterogeneity was found in nomenclature, epidemiology, associated conditions, assessments, management, and outcomes. An open surgical approach and, more recently, hybrid open and minimally invasive technique are reported for surgical repair. Postoperative outcomes were good in most surgical series, with no significant difference when compared with the repair of other pectus deformities. Conclusions and Relevance Results of this systematic review reveal that pectus arcuatum is a rare variant of pectus deformities that is distinct from carinatum and excavatum. Unified terminology and standardized diagnostic criteria are important to facilitate proper management. Minimally invasive hybrid approaches continue to refine outcomes, balancing invasiveness with efficacy.

Aortic stenosis is a progressive condition with substantial implications for morbidity and mortality. In recent years, attention has shifted toward risk stratification and the development of individualized management plans to optimize treatment outcomes. The management of asymptomatic patients has become a topic of significant controversy, as emerging studies challenge traditional watchful waiting guidelines and propose the potential benefits of early intervention. While early intervention may reduce overall morbidity and mortality in this patient population, the associated procedural risks remain a critical consideration. This review seeks to analyze the existing literature, offering an updated perspective on patient risk stratification and evidence evaluating both management approaches.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration (BAVD) is a significant clinical concern following both transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). The increasing use of bioprosthetic valves in aortic valve replacement in younger patients and the subsequent rise in cases of BAVD are acknowledged in this review which aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the incidence, diagnosis, predictors, and management of BAVD. Based on a thorough review of the existing literature, this article provides an updated overview of the biological mechanisms underlying valve degeneration, including calcification, structural deterioration, and inflammatory processes and addresses the various risk factors contributing to BAVD, such as patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedural variables. The difficulties in early detection and accurate diagnosis of BAVD are discussed with an emphasis on the need for improved imaging techniques. The incidence and progression of BAVD in patients undergoing TAVR versus SAVR are compared, providing insights into the differences and similarities between the two procedures and procedural impacts on valve longevity. The current strategies for managing BAVD, including re-intervention options of redo surgery and valve-in-valve TAVR, along with emerging treatments are discussed. The controversies in the existing literature are highlighted to offer directions for future investigations to enhance the understanding and management of BAVD.

Lipoprotein (a) is a complex lipid molecule that has sparked immense interest in recent years, after studies demonstrated its significant association with several cardiovascular conditions. Lp(a) promotes cardiovascular disease through its combined proatherogenic, pro-inflammatory, and prothrombotic effects. While the measurement of Lp(a) has become widely available, effective methods to reduce its concentration are currently limited. However, emerging data from ongoing clinical trials involving antisense oligonucleotides have indicated promising outcomes in effectively reducing Lp(a) concentrations. This may serve as a potential therapeutic target in the management and prevention of myocardial infarction, calcific aortic stenosis, and cerebrovascular accidents. In contrast, the role of Lp(a) in atrial fibrillation, in-stent restenosis, cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and bioprosthetic aortic valve degeneration remains unclear. This review article aims to thoroughly review the existing literature and provide an updated overview of the evidence surrounding the association of Lp(a) and these cardiovascular diseases. We seek to highlight controversies in the existing literature and offer directions for future investigations to better understand Lp(a)’s precise role in these conditions, while providing a summary of its unique molecular characteristics.