Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The safety and efficacy of neuroablation (ABL) and deep brain stimulation (DBS) for treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has not been examined. This study sought to generate a definitive comparative effectiveness model of these therapies. METHODS:A EMBASE/PubMed search of English-language, peer-reviewed articles reporting ABL and DBS for OCD was performed in January 2018. Change in quality of life (QOL) was quantified based on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) and the impact of complications on QOL was assessed. Mean response of Y-BOCS was determined using random-effects, inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis of observational data. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Across 56 studies, totalling 681 cases (367 ABL; 314 DBS), ABL exhibited greater overall utility than DBS. Pooled ability to reduce Y-BOCS scores was 50.4% (±22.7%) for ABL and was 40.9% (±13.7%) for DBS. Meta-regression revealed no significant change in per cent improvement in Y-BOCS scores over the length of follow-up for either ABL or DBS. Adverse events occurred in 43.6% (±4.2%) of ABL cases and 64.6% (±4.1%) of DBS cases (p<0.001). Complications reduced ABL utility by 72.6% (±4.0%) and DBS utility by 71.7% (±4.3%). ABL utility (0.189±0.03) was superior to DBS (0.167±0.04) (p<0.001). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, ABL utility was greater than DBS, with ABL showing a greater per cent improvement in Y-BOCS than DBS. These findings help guide success thresholds in future clinical trials for treatment refractory OCD.

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.

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.