Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Gustilo type IIIC open tibia fractures are characterized by an ischemic limb requiring immediate arterial repair. In this patient population, the decision between primary amputation and limb salvage can be challenging. This study aims to evaluate the reconstructive outcomes of patients with Gustilo type IIIC injuries. METHODS:A single-center retrospective review of 806 lower extremity free flaps from 1976 to 2016 was performed. Flap loss and salvage rates for patients with Gustilo type IIIC injuries were determined. To determine the utility of performing salvage in this group, outcomes of the IIIC reconstructions were compared to those of similar patients with Gustilo I type IIB injuries with only a single patent vessel. RESULTS:A total of 32 patients with Gustilo type IIIC injuries underwent reconstruction after traumatic injury. Ten patients (31.3 percent) experienced a perioperative complication, including seven unplanned returns to the operating room (21.9 percent), three partial flap losses (9.4 percent), and five complete flap losses (15.6 percent). When type IIIC injuries were compared with single-vessel Gustilo type IIIB injuries, no statistically significant differences were noted with respect to major perioperative complications (p = 0.527), unplanned return to the operating room (p = 0.06), partial flap loss (p = 0.209), complete flap loss (p = 0.596), or salvage rate (p = 0.368). Although this result was not statistically significant, Gustilo type IIIC injuries trended toward lower take-back rates and higher salvage rates compared with single-vessel Gustilo type IIIB injuries. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients with Gustilo type IIIC open tibia fractures should be considered candidates for limb salvage, as flap loss and reconstruction of these injuries are comparable to those of the routinely reconstructed single-vessel runoff type IIIB injuries. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, IV.

OBJECTIVE:The Veau classification represents the most commonly used system for characterizing cleft palate severity. Conflicting evidence exists as to how increasing Veau classification affects outcomes. This study compared perioperative outcomes between Veau III and IV cleft palate repairs. METHODS:The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric (NSQIP-P) database was used to identify cleft palate repairs between 2012 and 2016 using CPT codes. Patients with alveolar bone grafts were excluded. Veau III (unilateral) and Veau IV (bilateral) cleft palate repairs were identified using International Classification of Disease code 9 and 10 (ICD-9 and -10 codes. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and adverse events were compared between the cohorts. RESULTS:A total of 5026 patients underwent cleft palate repair between 2012 and 2016. Of the 2114 patients with identifiable Veau classification, 1302 had Veau III cleft palates and 812 had Veau IV cleft palates.The Veau IV cleft palate patient population was older (377.8 versus 354.1 days, P < 0.001) and had significantly more comorbidities including a higher incidence of chronic lung disease (P = 0.014), airway abnormalities (P = 0.001), developmental delay (P = 0.018), structural central nervous system deformities (P < 0.001), and nutritional support (P < 0.001). Veau IV cleft palate repairs also had longer operative times (153.2 versus 140.2 minutes, P < 0.001). Despite significant differences in comorbidities and perioperative factors, there were no differences in 30-day complications, readmissions, or reoperation rates between Veau III and IV cleft palate repairs. CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing Veau IV cleft palate repair have a significantly greater number of comorbidities than Veau III cleft palate repairs. Despite differences in patient populations, 30-day surgical outcomes are comparable between the cohorts.

BACKGROUND:Despite the medical necessity, legislative mandates, and economic benefits of gender-affirming surgery, access to treatment remains limited. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has proposed guidelines for transition-related surgery in conjunction with criteria to delineate medical necessity. The authors assessed insurance coverage of "top" gender-affirming surgery and evaluated the differences between insurance policy criteria and WPATH recommendations. METHODS:The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of top gender-affirming surgery. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrollment data and market share. A Web-based search and individual telephone interviews were conducted to identify the policy. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from publicly available policies. RESULTS:Of the 57 insurers evaluated, bilateral mastectomy (transmasculine) was covered by significantly more insurers than breast augmentation (transfeminine) (96 percent versus 68 percent; p < 0.0001). Only 4 percent of companies used WPATH-consistent criteria. No criterion was universally required by insurers. Additional prerequisites for coverage that extended beyond WPATH guidelines for top surgery were continuous living in congruent gender role, two referring mental health professionals, and hormone therapy before surgery. Hormone therapy was required in a significantly higher proportion of transfeminine policies compared with transmasculine policies (90 percent versus 21 percent; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:In addition to the marked intercompany variation in criteria for insurance coverage that often deviated from WPATH recommendations, there are health care insurers who categorically deny access to top gender-affirming surgery. A greater evidence base is needed to provide further support for the medical necessity criteria in current use.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Controversy remains regarding the optimal degree of anatomic exposure, reduction, and fixation required during open reduction and internal fixation of zygomaticomaxillary complex (ZMC) fractures. We critically examined the reported data to compare the patient outcomes after various degrees of ZMC reduction and internal fixation. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A systematic review and meta-analysis were designed to test the null hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between different degrees of fixation of ZMC fractures. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Elsevier text mining tool database, and clinicaltrials.gov trial registries were queried. The quality of evidence was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method. RESULTS:Of 1213 screened studies, 13 met the inclusion criteria. Fracture instability at 3 months was greater with 2-point fixation (61.1%) than with 3-point fixation (10.6%; relative risk, 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 3.3). Less vertical orbital dystopia was seen with 3-point fixation than with 2-point fixation (mean difference, 0.9 mm; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.3 mm). The incidence of infection and malar asymmetry did not differ between the groups. The quality of evidence was very low to low. CONCLUSIONS:The reported data were limited by low quality, retrospective studies. However, the meta-analysis of randomized control trial data suggested a superiority of 3 points of exposure and fixation regarding fracture stability. When 2 points appear to provide stable fixation, the potential benefits of a third point should be weighed against the cost, operative time, and exposure/periosteal stripping on a case-by-case basis.