We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A 26-year-old woman, gravida 1, para 1, presents for removal of an etonogestrel (Nexplanon) contraceptive implant after utilizing it for contraception for 28 months. The device was initially placed by her primary care provider (PCP). In the referral notes, the PCP describes that she was not able to palpate the device. She ordered an ultrasound of the left arm, which confirmed the presence of the Nexplanon implant in the arm. The patient is requesting removal as she now desires another pregnancy. She reports satisfaction with Nexplanon as a contraceptive method. She does report menstrual irregularities since device placement, but since the result was lighter, less frequent menses, these changes were acceptable to her. She reports she has gained approximately 10 lb since the device was placed, but she attributes this to unhealthy eating habits and decreased physical activity. She denies any pain, numbness, tingling, or weakness in her upper extremity. Her past medical history is significant for childhood asthma and surgical history for wisdom tooth extraction. She is taking multivitamins and has no known drug allergies.
We report the case of a 59-year-old patient with a complex atrial septal defect in whom a 40-mm Amplatzer™ septal occluder was surgically extracted 50 days following implantation. Deployment manoeuvres were challenging leading to an immediate pericardial effusion that was closely monitored and uneventfully drained after 11 days. A dry pericardium was documented until 4 weeks of outpatient routine follow-up. However, the device was surgically explanted 2 weeks later, when an urgent chest computed tomography performed for worrisome symptoms showed pericardial effusion recurrence with peripheral contrast enhancement. Surprisingly, the surgical view showed a well-positioned device and an intact pericardium. We discuss the atypical sequence of clinical findings misleading our clinical judgement and precipitating surgery.
We report a case of tracheal stenosis in which a migrated Polyflex (Rusch AG, Germany) stent entered the right main bronchus but could not be identified on the chest radiograph. The stent was identified at bronchoscopy and removed under general anaesthesia.
Polyflex stents are radiopaque but may not always show up on radiograph. We recommend reliance on clinical symptoms rather than imaging to diagnose migration. If stent migration is suspected then imaging should include thoracic inlet films that incorporate a lateral view.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.