Zeineddine, Rawan M.

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.

Mitral regurgitation (MR) in lung transplant (LTx) recipients is a rare but complex cardiopulmonary phenomenon. The overlap between symptoms of MR and post-LTx complications, such as primary graft dysfunction, complicates its diagnosis and management. This systematic review aims to characterize the incidence, pathophysiology, presentation, and management of MR in LTx patients. We conducted a literature search in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase. The search yielded 133 studies, of which 11 were included. Data regarding MR development, clinical presentation, echocardiographic findings, and management strategies were extracted and analyzed. Perioperative MR, occurring during or immediately post-LTx, was frequently attributed to the systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve (MV) occurring in the setting of hypovolemia and/or inotrope usage. Later postoperative MR, on the other hand, was associated with reverse ventricular remodeling and mitral annular dilation, although some variability in the literature was present. Preexisting MR or ventricular dysfunction, elongated MV leaflets, and bilateral LTx procedure appeared to be risk factors for MR development. Management was dependent on the timing of MR and its pathophysiology, where systolic anterior motion–related MR was treated with medical therapy, whereas postoperative MR often required MV interventions. In conclusion, the diagnosis of MR in LTx patients is complicated by its symptomatic overlap with other post-LTx complications. Echocardiographic monitoring in patients with preexisting MR, regardless of severity, is essential for early identification and management. Further research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms and refine management strategies for MR in this population.

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.