Search

Massive weight loss might lead to excess skin folds causing functional, physical, and psychosocial discomfort. Following bariatric procedures, an increasing number of patients are seeking lower body contouring surgery (LBCS). The proportion of bariatric patients who undergo LBCS is largely unknown. The aim of this current study was to analyse the incidence and realization of LBCS in bariatric patients in Finland. National retrospective register linkage study including all adult patients who received bariatric surgery in Finland during 1998–2016. The data were obtained from the Finnish national health registers maintained by the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare. Altogether 1089 (14.1%) of 7703 bariatric patients underwent LBCS during the study period. The majority of the LBCS procedures were abdominoplasty (89%). Median latency between bariatric surgery and LBCS was 31 months. The patients with LBCS were younger (p < 0.001) and received sleeve gastrectomy (p < 0.001). We revealed an annual correlation between LBCS and bariatric procedures (r = 0.683). With a two-year latency between the bariatric and post-bariatric operations, the correlation co-efficiency was strong (r = 0.927). LBCS operations ranged from 5 to 215 per hospital district. Most LBCSs (97.3%) were performed in public hospitals, and some (41%) were performed in university hospitals. This study shows that only 14.1% of bariatric patients undergo LBCS. There is a correlation between bariatric procedures and succeeding plastic surgical reconstructive procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) has been studied in several malignant and nonmalignant tissues. However, only in Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) has the connection to tumorigenesis been established. Previously, eccrine porocarcinoma samples were shown to express MCPyV in the majority of samples. We aimed to examine MCPyV in porocarcinoma and poroma samples using MCC as the reference material. Methods: We analyzed 17 porocarcinoma and 50 poroma samples for the presence of MCPyV using LT antigen immunostaining and DNA detection methods. In addition, 180 MCC samples served as controls. Results: MCPyV LT antigen immunostaining was detected in 10% of poroma and 18% of porocarcinoma samples; on the other hand, it was present in 65% of MCC samples. MCPyV DNA was detected in only 10% of poroma and porocarcinoma samples compared with 96% of MCC samples. The viral DNA copy number in all MCPyV DNA‐positive MCCs was at least 25 times higher than that in porocarcinoma or poroma samples with the highest MCPyV DNA‐to‐PTPRG ratio. Conclusions: The low number of viral DNA copies in poroma and porocarcinoma samples, together with the negative LT expression of MCPyV DNA‐positive tumors, indicates that MCPyV is simply a passenger virus rather than an oncogenic driver of porocarcinoma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a common cause of musculoskeletal injury. Although serious injuries are relatively rare, IPV is one of the leading causes of homicide. IPV victims seeking help in health care are known to be at specific risk of re-abuse. Previous studies of IPV victims in emergency room (ER) settings have focused on injury patterns, but little is known about the violence behind bruises and fractures. The aim of this study was to examine how violence severity and known risk factors for lethal re-abuse in IPV victims attending ERs are associated with injury severity, different patient groups, and referral to advocacy services. This was a prospective, observational, multicenter study of 146 self-reporting IPV victims in two Level IV trauma centers in Helsinki from October 2012 to November 2013. In our sample, serious injuries were rare, but patients had typically suffered severe violence, and half had at least one risk factor for lethal re-abuse. Both sexes and all age groups were represented among the patient profiles, and 88% attended ERs outside common working hours. Only 19% were referred to advocacy, and severe violence or risk factors for lethal re-abuse did not affect prevalence of referrals. Our results show that IPV victims in primary care ERs have typically either experienced severe violence or are at serious risk of re-abuse and even death. The resulting injuries do not usually require medical aftercare, and victims typically present outside common working hours. In the absence of a clear follow-up protocol, most IPV victims are left without any advocacy intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]