Faculty Bibliography

SUMMARY:The coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic became a global threat in a matter of weeks, with its future implications yet to be defined. New York City was swiftly declared the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States as case numbers grew exponentially in a matter of days, quickly threatening to overwhelm the capacity of the health care system. This burgeoning crisis led practitioners across specialties to adapt and mobilize rapidly. Plastic surgeons and trainees within the New York University Langone Health system faced uncertainty in terms of future practice, in addition to immediate and long-term effects on undergraduate and graduate medical education. The administration remained vigilant and adaptive, enacting departmental policies prioritizing safety and productivity, with early deployment of faculty for clinical support at the front lines. The authors anticipate that this pandemic will have far-reaching effects on the future of plastic surgery education, trends in the pursuit of elective surgical procedures, and considerable consequences for certain research endeavors. Undoubtedly, there will be substantial impact on the physical and mental well-being of health care practitioners across specialties. Coordinated efforts and clear lines of communication between the Department of Plastic Surgery and its faculty and trainees allowed a concerted effort toward the immediate challenge of tempering the spread of coronavirus disease of 2019 and preserving structure and throughput for education and research. Adaptation and creativity have ultimately allowed for early rebooting of in-person clinical and surgical practice. The authors present their coordinated efforts and lessons gleaned from their experience to inform their community's preparedness as this formidable challenge evolves.

Over the past 15 years, landmark achievements have established facial transplantation (FT) as a feasible reconstructive option for otherwise irreparable craniofacial defects. However, as the field matures and long-term outcomes begin to emerge, FT teams around the world are now facing new challenges. Data for this review were identified by searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE database from inception through August 2020. All English-language articles pertaining to FT were included. Significant advances in candidate selection, technology, operative technique, posttransplant care, and immunosuppressive management have contributed to the tremendous expansion of the field, culminating in the execution in the past 3 years of 2 facial re-transplantations, and most recently the world's first successful combined face and double hand transplant in August 2020. Despite these achievements, the allograft donor pool remains limited, with long wait times, requiring surgical experimentation with cross-sex FT. Immunosuppressive management has improved, but significant adverse events continue to be reported. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has placed an unprecedented strain on the healthcare system, with various implications for the practice of reconstructive transplantation. In this article, we provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date FT review, highlighting fundamental lessons learned and recent advancements, while looking toward the challenges ahead. Over the past 15 years, extensive multidisciplinary efforts have been instrumental to the establishment of FT as a feasible reconstructive option. As novel challenges are beginning to emerge, continued collaborative and multispecialty research efforts are needed to further this field.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to measure the association between the magnitude of advancement and dental and skeletal relapse in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). METHODS:A single-institution retrospective cohort study of skeletally matured patients with CLP who underwent isolated Le Fort I advancement surgery between 2013 and 2019 was studied. Patients were included if they had lateral cephalograms or cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) at preoperative (T1), immediately postoperative (T2), and 1-year follow-up (T3). Lateral cephalometric landmarks were digitized and measured. The sample was divided on the basis of the magnitude of skeletal advancement: minor (<5 mm), moderate (≥5 but <10 mm), and major (≥10 mm) advancement groups. The mean advancement and relapse were compared between groups using 1-way ANOVA. Correlation between the amount of surgical advancement and relapse was evaluated. RESULTS:Forty-nine patients with nonsyndromic CLP with hypoplastic maxilla met inclusion criteria and the sample consisted of 36 males and 13 females with the mean age of 19.5 years. In the minor, moderate, and major advancement groups, the mean advancement at point A was +4.1 ± 0.4, + 7.5 ± 1.4, and +11.3 ± 1.3 mm, respectively. At 1-year follow-up, the mean relapse at point A was -1.3 ± 1.2, -1.1 ± 1.2, and -1.7 ± 1.5 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the relapse amount between all surgical groups. No correlation between the magnitude of advancement and relapse was found. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrated no statistically significant difference in skeletal stability between a minor (<5 mm), moderate (≥5 but <10 mm), and major (≥10 mm) Le Fort I advancement groups in patients with clefts. Regardless of the degree of advancement, mild skeletal relapse was observed in all 3 groups.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Appreciate the evolution and increasing complexity of transplanted facial allografts over the past two decades. 2. Discuss indications and contraindications for facial transplantation, and donor and recipient selection criteria and considerations. 3. Discuss logistical, immunologic, and cost considerations in facial transplantation, in addition to emerging technologies used. 4. Understand surgical approaches and anatomical and technical nuances of the procedure. 5. Describe aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial outcomes of facial transplantation reported to date. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:This CME article highlights principles and evolving concepts in facial transplantation. The field has witnessed significant advances over the past two decades, with more than 40 face transplants reported to date. The procedure now occupies the highest rung on the reconstructive ladder for patients with extensive facial disfigurement who are not amenable to autologous reconstructive approaches, in pursuit of optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes. Indications, contraindications, and donor and recipient considerations for the procedure are discussed. The authors also review logistical, immunologic, and cost considerations of facial transplantation. Surgical approaches to allograft procurement and transplantation, in addition to technical and anatomical nuances of the procedure, are provided. Finally, the authors review aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial outcomes that have been reported to date.

Chronic facial paralysis can lead to significant functional and psychosocial impairment. Treatment often involves free muscle flap-based facial reanimation surgery. Although surgical techniques have advanced considerably over the years, consensus has yet to be reached for postoperative outcome evaluation. To facilitate outcome comparison between the various techniques for free muscle-flap-based reanimation, a standardized, widely accepted functional outcomes assessment tool must be adopted.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:This study evaluates skeletal and dental outcomes of LeFort I advancement surgery in patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP) with varying degrees of maxillary skeletal hypoplasia. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective study. METHOD/UNASSIGNED:: ≤-10 mm. PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:Fifty-one patients with nonsyndromic CLP with hypoplastic maxilla who met inclusion criteria. INTERVENTION/UNASSIGNED:LeFort I advancement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE/UNASSIGNED:Skeletal and dental stability post-LeFort I surgery at a 1-year follow-up. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:At T2, LeFort I surgery produced an average correction of maxillary hypoplasia by 6.4 ± 0.6, 8.1 ± 0.4, and 10.7 ± 0.8 mm in the mild, moderate, and severe groups, respectively. There was a mean relapse of 1 to 1.5 mm observed in all groups. At T3, no statistically significant differences were observed between the surgical groups and controls at angle Sella, Nasion, A point (SNA), A point, Nasion, B point (ANB), and overjet outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:LeFort I advancement produces a stable correction in mild, moderate, and severe skeletal maxillary hypoplasia. Overcorrection is recommended in all patients with CLP to compensate for the expected postsurgical skeletal relapse.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration has been shown to be beneficial when we have complex problems and highly specialized groups, such as in head and neck reconstruction. Otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and oral maxillofacial surgeons perform head and neck reconstruction research. While the specialties represent unique backgrounds, the degree of interdisciplinary collaboration and subtopic focus is unknown. We sought to describe the frequency of interinstitutional interdisciplinary collaboration and examine the association of specialty with research subtopics. METHODS: Oral presentations from 2014 to 2018 focused on head and neck reconstruction or associated principles at the main reconstructive academic meetings in otolaryngology (American Head and Neck Society), plastic surgery (American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery), and oral maxillofacial surgery (American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) were reviewed. Author specialty and institution data were recorded. All abstracts were assigned a research subtopic, chosen based on identified themes. Subtopic frequencies among the specialties were compared. RESULTS: Thirteen of 88 (15%) US institutions participate in interdisciplinary collaboration in head and neck reconstruction research. Of the remaining institutions, 23 (31%) have researchers performing parallel work and not collaborating. Certain research subtopics were more often presented by each specialty, representing differing interests. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration among head and neck reconstruction research at the US institutions is low compared with the potential. Specialties focus on different research subtopics, and therefore can benefit from working together.