Annals of Plastic Surgery最新文献

Background: Mohs Micrographic Surgery (MMS) is the gold standard for minimizing damage to healthy tissue surrounding nonmelanoma skin cancer. However, extensive or complex lesions may require reconstructive plastic surgery to restore form, function, and aesthetic outcomes for patients. Social determinants of health (SDOH)-including socioeconomic status, geographic location, healthcare access, and insurance coverage-significantly shape patient outcomes. Disparities in access to MMS and subsequent reconstruction remain underexplored. This review highlights the need for Mohs and reconstructive plastic surgeons involved in post-MMS reconstruction to consider social determinants of health (SDOH) in their practice.

Methods: A structured literature review was conducted through PubMed and Web of Science, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms used included "facial reconstruction," "Mohs surgery," "social determinants of health," "social determinants," and "disparities," limiting the review to head and neck post-MMS cases. Eighteen articles met inclusion.

Results: Among the 18 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 11% (2/18) focused on skin cancer detection, 28% (5/18) focused on barriers to accessing MMS, 22% (4/18) explained patients' post-MMS outcomes, and 28% (5/18) focused on the desires for reconstructive surgery and outcomes, but only 11% (2/18) discussed reconstructive surgery post-MMS.

Conclusion: Although all included studies examined disparities in the Mohs surgery care continuum, only 2 of 18 specifically addressed disparities in access to post-MMS plastic surgery reconstruction. This highlights critical gaps in interdisciplinary collaboration between Mohs and reconstructive surgeons in initial skin cancer detection, MMS, and post-MMS reconstruction. These findings reflect real-world barriers, where patients face systemic challenges in obtaining timely and equitable reconstructive care. Future studies should examine how systemic, socioeconomic, and geographic barriers impact referrals and outcomes, and develop coordinated strategies between dermatology and plastic surgery to improve equitable access to reconstruction.

Background: Scalp burns pose a unique challenge to the reconstructive surgeon given the anatomical characteristics of the head and neck. This challenge is magnified in severe burn injuries extending to the calvarial bone. Several algorithms for scalp and calvarial reconstruction have been presented in the past. However, no consensus exists about the optimal reconstructive approach. Our aim is to develop a novel algorithm for scalp burn reconstruction based on the relevant literature as well as case observations from the growing multidisciplinary field of neuroplastic surgery.

Methods: A literature review of articles on PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science focused on scalp and calvarial burn management was conducted. We also present relevant cases from our institution that demonstrate the neuroplastic surgery approach to reconstruction of complex burns in this region. An algorithmic approach based on relevant anatomy, reconstructive principles, and surgical techniques ranging from primary closure to cranioplasty to reconstruct scalp and skull defects following burns is proposed.

Results: A novel algorithmic approach based on the Harrison classification of injury was developed based on our literature review. We also present 2 relevant cases from our neuroplastic surgery practice. We determined that the initial and most important factor in scalp and calvarial management is the integrity of the pericranium. Other factors such as patient's compliance and cosmetic needs may also determine treatment approach.

Conclusions: Management of scalp burns can be simplified using an algorithmic approach. We anticipate this work will help guide and improve reconstructive management for scalp and calvarial burn patients for reconstructive surgeons, burn surgeons, and particularly surgeons in resource-poor settings faced with treating severe scalp and calvarial burns.

Background: Bioresorbable hyaluronate-carboxymethylcellulose membranes (HA membrane) have been applied to prevent adhesion formation following gynecologic and abdominal procedures. However, the use of HA membrane to enhance flap delay has not been well described. We present a novel application of HA membranes as barriers in delayed flaps for reconstructive surgery.

Methods: All cases where HA membrane was utilized as a barrier to separate the undersurface of the flap from its respective wound bed during a delay procedure by the senior surgeon were reviewed. Indications for use of the HA membrane included patient risk factors, flap selection, or wound size.

Results: The HA membrane was used in 4 patients undergoing flap reconstruction with a delay procedure. Flaps included were the reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap, trapezius myocutaneous flap, and 2 paramedian forehead flaps. All of the donor wound beds showed no residual HA membrane and no tissue adherence, thus allowing minimal repeat dissection. All flaps were viable without signs of infection. All of the flaps in this study healed without any complications. There were no instances of infection, venous congestion, or delayed wound healing.

Conclusion: HA membranes can safely serve as degradable barriers in flaps undergoing the delay phenomenon. We speculate that HA membrane reduces reestablishment of microvascular network between the flap and its wound bed and may contribute to augmentation of the remaining circulation within the delayed flap.

Introduction: American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA) teams consist of trained professionals collaborating in an interdisciplinary approach to optimize outcomes for patients with cleft palate. Orthodontic care is essential to correct dental malocclusion, guide maxillary growth, enhance surgical outcomes, and improve oral function and aesthetics. Although ACPA approval requires an orthodontist in the multidisciplinary team, the methods of delivering orthodontic care remain unclear. This project aims to elucidate how orthodontic care is integrated into ACPA teams.

Methods: A list of ACPA teams (n = 204) and reported orthodontists (n = 374) was obtained from the ACPA directory. Teams outside the US. and duplicate listings were excluded. Each team's website was reviewed to identify orthodontists, care delivery types (university/hospital, private practice, mixed, not listed), and orthodontic craniofacial fellowship status. Team geographic distribution was compared across the 4 US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Census regions: West, Midwest, South, and Northeast.

Results: Among 184 ACPA-approved teams, only 46.7% listed an orthodontist on their public websites, despite guidelines requiring orthodontic inclusion. The most common care model was university/hospital-based (25%), followed by private practice (18.5%), with variation across teams (P < 0.001). Only 16.3% of teams included a craniofacial fellowship-trained orthodontist, whereas over half did not report training status. Private practice teams were less likely to include a fellowship-trained orthodontist compared to university/hospital-based teams (OR, 0.086; P < 0.001). Most teams had 1 to 2 orthodontists (mean, 1.84), with no difference by region or care model. Regionally, the South had the highest proportion of teams (33.2%) and orthodontists (33.2%), whereas the Northeast had the fewest. Fellowship-trained orthodontists were most common in the South but showed no regional difference (P = 0.989).

Discussion: Orthodontists are inconsistently represented across ACPA teams with limited public reporting and low rates of fellowship training. Variation in care delivery models and regional access highlights structural gaps in interdisciplinary cleft care. Standardizing orthodontic integration and increasing fellowship training may improve the consistency and equity of craniofacial care nationwide.

Abstract: Outreach medical programs refer to medical or surgical care initiatives provided by volunteer teams typically from higher income countries and last from a few days to 8 weeks. To appreciate the development and empowerment of the onsite team, the use of "Sustainable Health Programs" (SHP) has become the preferred terminology at Global Smile Foundation. This study aims to review the challenges faced with implementing SHPs and propose a framework with the goal of implementing successful and sustainable programs. The cornerstone of such success is forging long-term, bidirectional partnerships with local healthcare teams, empowering them not only with clinical skills but also with the ability to mobilize resources independently. A SHP's success is gauged by how well it strengthens the local system to carry the mission forward long after the international team departs.

Background: Skin-reducing mastectomy (SRM) represents a surgical option that provides patients with ptotic breasts the advantage of undergoing simultaneous nipple-preserving mastopexy in conjunction with mastectomy. Nonetheless, existing data, primarily derived from single-center studies, are characterized by limited patient cohorts. Therefore, this study examines the complications associated with SRM.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase to evaluate outcomes of skin-reducing mastectomies, following PRISMA guidelines. Search terms included "cancer," "mastectomy," "mastopexy," and "nipple." We included studies detailing surgical techniques of nipple-preserving, skin-reducing mastectomy and its complications, excluding those with nipple grafting. Complications assessed were necrosis of the nipple-areola complex, infection, wound dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, implant loss, and skin flap necrosis, analyzed using a random-effects model meta-analysis.

Results: Twenty-eight studies included for data extraction. The review examined 1201 breasts from 716 patients who underwent skin-reducing mastectomy. Mean age was 47.45 ± 5.6 years. Mean BMI was 27.29 ± 2.45 kg/m2. Mean mastectomy weight was 633.78 ± 125.64 g. Mean implant size was 472.3 ± 125.67 cc. 45.87% of patients underwent SRM for therapeutic indications. 23.97% (CI = 17.40%, 31.15%) of all patients reported complications. The most common complication was necrosis of the nipple-areola complex (6.55%, CI = 3.84%, 9.78%). Reoperation rate for any complication was 6.76% (CI = 3.46%, 10.83%).

Conclusions: Systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for SRM demonstrates that nipple areolar necrosis is the most prevalent complication in this population. This finding underscores the necessity to examine various factors that may enhance outcomes for individuals in this cohort.

Purpose: Open access publishing models are common in plastic surgery. We aim to quantify the financial investment required to support open access publishing for plastic surgery students during both medical school and residency training.

Methods: Peer-reviewed PubMed journal articles from plastic and reconstructive surgery-related journals published by current PGY-2 through PGY-6 integrated plastic surgery residents were divided into publications during medical school and publications during. Article-processing charges (APCs) for analyzed articles were collected online. Subgroup analyses by institutional NIH funding were conducted.

Results: A total of 2904 unique publications published by 606 PGY-2-PGY-6 integrated plastic surgery residents during medical school and 1109 publications from 245 PGY-5 and PGY-6 residents during residency were extracted. For medical school publications, each individual had a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 4 (2-7) publications; 20.4% of their publications had a mandatory APC with a mean (SD) APC of $2140 (727) per project. The percent APC increased over time (correlation = 0.09). For residency publications, each student had a median (IQR) of 3 (2-7) publications; 23.6% of each resident's publications required an APC, with an average APC of $2140 ± $765 (mean ± SD) per project. Publications affiliated with a top 25 NIH-funded medical institution had a lower rate of open access publishing with an APC (17.8% vs 22.9%) but higher average impact factor (1.86 vs 2.03).

Conclusions: Students publishing in plastic surgery journals require financial investment for open access fees. Institutions should ensure that they have adequate resources to support trainee publishing.