Locating Hormone-Releasing Contraceptive Implants Using Near-Infrared Light

Nonpalpable implant removals at centre of experience in France: a cohort study

STUDY DESIGN

In this retrospective study, we reviewed all cases referred to our specialised centre for nonpalpable contraceptive implants from January 2018 to August 2022.

RESULTS

Out of the cohort studied, 47 female subjects exhibited nonpalpable implants. The implant was nonpalpable for thirty-six patients (76,6%) immediately after the insertion whereas it was not palpable several months after the insertion for eleven patients (23.4%). Twelve patients (25.5%) had one or more failed removal attempts before referral.All 47 implants were successfully visualised via ultrasound in the upper arm: 40 implants (85.1%) were located in the subdermal tissue, 4 (8.5%) were intrafascial and 3 (6.4%) were intramuscular. Depth of the implant was 4.0 mm [1.7 - 12.0]. No clinical factors were statistically associated with differences in depth or location (subdermal vs subfascial). Removal procedures were mainly under local anaesthesia in 74.5% of cases in an outpatient setting. There were two Clavien-Dindo grade 1 complications (one case of cutaneous scar dehiscence and one transient postoperative neuropathic complaint in the upper arm resolved within 3 months under analgetics).

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of deep implants requires following the ultrasound modality protocol. Ultrasound detection makes easy and safe implant removal. Training programs for the insertion as well as for the removal of correct and incorrect inserted implants should be continued and developed all around the world.

Retained Diabetes Devices-A Literature Review

BACKGROUND

Diabetes management and treatment requires the use of many devices that frequently must puncture the skin, creating a risk of unintentional retention in the body as a retained diabetes device. In this article, we reviewed case studies about retained diabetes devices and presented analyses of the success rate of current imaging techniques in identifying retained devices and the success rate of device removal.

METHODS

PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles about retained diabetes devices. Relevant articles that included sufficient details about discovery and removal of the device were included. The success rate of identification and the success rate of removal of retained devices were both calculated as percentages.

RESULTS

Sixteen case studies of retained diabetes devices were identified. These devices included parts of continuous glucose monitors and infusion sets, a lancet, and various types of needles for insulin injection. Each case is presented with details about the year of publication, the retained diabetes device, the company that produced the device, the age and gender of the patient, the type of diabetes that the patient had, the location of the device, the reason for initial discovery of the retained device, the process of locating the device, the success rate for removal of the device, and the removal procedure of the device. Analysis revealed a 100% success rate for the use of imaging technology including X-rays and computed tomography to identify a retained diabetes device. The patients with retained diabetes devices had a 62.5% success rate for eventual removal of the device.

CONCLUSIONS

With the increasing use of injected, inserted, and implanted diabetes wearables for digital health, it is likely that some of the devices will detach, break apart, or otherwise become retained in the body. It is important to be aware of available technologies to identify retained diabetes devices so that it will be possible in most cases to surgically remove these devices if they detach or become retained.