Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Mandibular fractures are the most common isolated facial fractures in the United States. Various risk factors have been associated with increased rates of postoperative complications. However, national outcome reports are limited and data are conflicting. Using a national multi-institutional database, the authors sought to analyze 30-day outcomes after mandibular fracture repair and determine risk factors for complications, readmission, and reoperation. METHODS:Retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement database was performed to identify patients undergoing surgical treatment of mandibular fractures between 2010 and 2015 using current procedural terminology codes. Primary outcomes included: wound complications, overall complications, as well as readmission and reoperation rates. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS:A total of 953 patients were eligible for analysis. Mean patient age was 34.5 years, 84% were males, and 50% were active smokers. Wound complications, overall complications, 30-day reoperation, and readmission occurred in 4.0%, 7.9%, 2.2%, and 33% of patients, respectively. Age was a significant risk factor for 30-day readmission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.06, P = 0.01), reoperation (OR = 1.05, P = 0.01), and overall complications (OR = 1.03, P = 0.02) on multivariate analysis, and smoking was a significant risk factor for 30-day reoperation (OR = 4.86, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The analysis identified age as an independent risk factor for readmission, reoperation, and overall complications. Smokers were also nearly 5 times as likely to undergo additional surgery. This is particularly important given that over half of patients were active smokers, highlighting the importance of perioperative patient education and smoking cessation within this population.

Innovative surgery is defined as a novel procedure, a significant modification of a standard technique, or a new application of an established technique. Although innovation is a crucial part of improving patient care in plastic surgery, there are various ethical considerations and dilemmas in performing unvalidated techniques and procedures, especially for non-life-threatening indications. The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding regarding the motivations and ethical considerations of plastic surgeons in their decision to perform innovative operations. An anonymous, institutional review board-approved, online survey was sent to members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and other international plastic surgeons worldwide. The survey asked respondents to rank various factors that influence their decisions to perform innovative plastic surgery, both reconstructive and aesthetic, on a five-point Likert scale. Seven hundred thirty-three of 26,028 plastic surgeons (response rate, 2.9 percent) responded to the survey. Although similar factors were considered to be important for both reconstructive and aesthetic operations, only approximately 50 percent of respondents considered institutional review board approval to be an important factor when considering innovation in both reconstructive (50 percent) and aesthetic surgery (51 percent), suggesting that respondents do not consider innovation a form of research that ought be subject to standard research protections. Overall, the authors' survey suggests that more effort must be extended to ethical training in plastic surgery to create a stronger professional atmosphere regarding innovation and, possibly, to the creation of a more formal group charged with oversight of innovation.

Facial transplantation provides a functional and aesthetic solution to severe facial disfigurement previously unresolved by conventional reconstruction. Few facial allografts have been ear containing; hence, there is limited knowledge of the postoperative otologic considerations. We describe the case of a 44-year-old man who underwent transplantation of the total face, eyelids, ears, scalp, and skeletal subunits in 2015 after an extensive thermal injury. We detail the patient's transition from osseointegrated prosthetic ears to an ear-containing facial allograft, and describe the unique surgical approach and challenges encountered. Subsequent bilateral revision meatoplasties were performed, which provided relief from stenosis of the external auditory meatus. Laryngoscope, 2018.

BACKGROUND:Despite early skepticism, the field of vascularized composite allotransplantation (VCA) has demonstrated feasibility. The ethics of VCA have moved past doubts about the morality of attempting such transplant to how to conduct them ethically. METHODS:Leaders of each program performing and/or evaluating VCA in the United States were invited to participate in a working group to assess the state and future of VCA ethics and policy. Four meetings were held over the course of 1 year to describe key challenges and potential solutions. RESULTS:Working group participants concluded that VCA holds great promise as treatment for patients with particular injuries or deficits, but the field faces unique challenges to adoption as standard of care, which can only be overcome by data sharing and standardization of evaluation and outcome metrics. CONCLUSIONS:Adequate attention must be given to concerns including managing the uniquely intense physician-patient relationship, ethical patient selection, ensuring patients have adequate representation, informing and earning the trust of the public for donation, standardizing metrics for success, and fostering an environment of data sharing. These steps are critical to transitioning VCA from research to standard of care, and to its insurance coverage inclusion.

Technical success has been achieved in several forms of vascularized composite allotransplantation, including hand, face, penis, and lower extremity. However, the risks of lifelong immunosuppression have limited these procedures to a select group of patients for whom nontransplant alternatives have resulted in unsatisfactory outcomes. Recent reports of facial allograft failure, and subsequent reconstruction using autologous tissues, have reinforced the idea that a surgical contingency plan must be in place in case this devastating complication occurs. Interestingly, backup plans in the setting of vascularized composite allotransplantation consist of the nontransplant alternatives that were deemed suboptimal in the first place. Moreover, these options may have been exhausted before transplantation, and may therefore be limited in the case of allograft loss or reamputation. In this article, the authors describe the surgical and nonsurgical alternatives to hand, face, penis, and lower extremity transplantation. In addition, the authors explore the ethical implications of approaching vascularized composite allotransplantation as a "last resort" or as a "high-risk, improved-outcome" procedure, focusing on whether nontransplant options eventually preclude vascularized composite allotransplantation, or whether vascularized composite allotransplantation limits future nontransplant reconstruction.

Reconstruction of the nasal lining has traditionally been performed using the folded radial forearm free flap, given its reliable blood supply, pliability, and familiarity to surgeons with respect to its harvest. More recently, the free ulnar forearm flap has been proposed as an alternative reconstructive option for the nasal lining, with safe and reliable outcomes, and improved donor-site morbidity compared with its radial counterpart. In this article, the authors provide educational video footage with accompanying text description of the senior author's (E.D.R) approach to design and elevation of the free ulnar forearm flap for the purpose of reconstructing a composite nasal defect. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:: Therapeutic, V.

The unique anatomical characteristics of the forearm region make it especially popular as a free flap donor site for craniofacial soft-tissue reconstruction. The free ulnar forearm flap is less hirsute and allows for better concealment of donor site scar as compared with its radial counterpart. Despite these factors, the free radial forearm flap remains more popular among reconstructive surgeons. Through the presented case series, we hope to emphasize the versatile nature of the free ulnar forearm flap in addressing various craniofacial soft-tissue defects. Following institutional review board approval, a retrospective review of the senior authors' clinical experience performing microvascular free ulnar forearm flap reconstruction of craniofacial soft-tissue defects was performed. A total of 10 patients were identified through our review. Soft-tissue defect locations included lower eyelid (n = 2), tongue and floor of mouth (n = 2), lower lip (n = 2), palatopharyngeal area (n = 1), nose (n = 1), and palate (n = 1). Trauma was the most common defect etiology (n = 5), followed by malignancy (n = 4), and iatrogenic injury in 1 case. All patients demonstrated good aesthetic and functional outcomes related to vision, speech, and oral intake at follow-up when applicable. The free ulnar forearm flap is a versatile reconstructive option that can be used to address a wide spectrum of craniofacial soft-tissue defects and offers numerous advantages over its radial counterpart.

Promising aesthetic and functional outcomes in facial transplantation have fueled the interest of patients and providers alike. However, there are currently only 11 active face transplant centers in the United States, and only five have accumulated operative experience to date, resulting in an extremely unbalanced geographical distribution of providers. Since face transplant recipients must receive life-long follow-up, this presents unique challenges for face transplant candidates and provider teams, as long-distance travel may add considerable difficulty to pre- and post-transplant care. Furthermore, by compromising follow-up, this burden of travel may impact the ability of experienced face transplant centers to collect data, share knowledge as these patients are followed, and continue to advance the field. This article highlights the unique logistical and ethical implications of the highly probable long-distance nature of face transplant care in the United States, a challenging aspect of management that has not been previously discussed in the literature. Furthermore, we review current strategies in the long-distance management of solid organ transplantation (SOT) recipients, and propose several possibilities to help address these challenges in facial transplantation based on SOT experience.