Faculty Bibliography

Nasal reconstruction is considered the historic foundation of facial plastic surgery, and the forehead flap remains the workhorse of repair. To recreate both the aesthetic contour and function of the nose, all anatomic layers must be addressed-covering, lining, and structural support. This article reviews the noteworthy history underlying the development of the paramedian forehead flap as the primary tool in reconstruction of large nasal defects while highlighting its implications on modern nasal repair. Current developments in the use of 2-staged paramedian forehead flap reconstruction are examined and a modern technique is presented.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Apert syndrome patients are different in clinical pathology, including obstructive sleep apnea, cleft palate, and mental deficiency. These functional deficiencies may be due to anatomic deformities, which may be caused by different forms of associated suture fusion. Therefore, a classification system of Apert syndrome based on the type of craniosynostosis pattern might be helpful in determining treatment choices. Methods/UNASSIGNED:CT scans of 31 unoperated Apert syndrome and 51 controls were included and subgrouped as: class I. Bilateral coronal synostosis; class II. Pansynostosis; and class III. Perpendicular combination synostosis: a. unilateral coronal and metopic synostosis; b. sagittal with bilateral/unilateral lambdoid synostosis; and c. others. Results/UNASSIGNED:Class I is the most common (55%) subtype. The cranial base angulation of class I was normal; however, the cranial base angulation on the cranium side of the skull in class II increased 12.16 degrees (P = 0.006), whereas the facial side cranial base angle of class IIIa decreased 4.31 degrees (P = 0.035) over time. The external cranial base linear measurements of class I showed more evident reduction in anterior craniofacial structures than posterior, whereas other subtypes developed more severe shortening in the posterior aspects. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Bicoronal synostosis is the most common subtype of Apert syndrome with the normalized cranial base angulation. Combined pansynostosis patients have flatter cranial base, whereas the combined unilateral coronal synostosis have a kyphotic cranial base. Class I has more significant nasopharyngeal airway compromise in a vertical direction, whereas classes II and III have more limited oropharyngeal space.

BACKGROUND:Single-stage primary cleft lip and palate (PCLP) repair is controversial in the United States, and most patients are treated with a staged approach. In this study, early postoperative complications of the single-stage approach as compared to primary cleft lip (PCL) or primary cleft palate (PCP) alone were evaluated. This study represents the largest cohort of patients undergoing combined cleft lip and palate repair. METHODS:The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-Pediatric database was used to identify patients undergoing single-stage PCLP, PCL, or PCP repairs. Preoperative factors and postoperative outcomes were compared between the 3 groups, as well as within the PCLP group between patients with and without complications. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS:A TOTAL OF:: 181 patients were included in the single-stage PCLP group, 1007 in the PCP group and 783 in the PCL group. There was no difference in the rates of early complications between the 3 groups. Within the PCLP group, cardiac risk factors (β = 35.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.88-75.21; P = 0.04) and complications (β = 77.31; 95% CI 35.82-118.79; P < 0.001) were significant risk factors for longer operative time. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Analysis of a national database showed that single-stage PCLP repair is not associated with increased risk of early postoperative complications as compared to primary lip or palate repair alone. In-depth long-term analyses of craniofacial morphology, fistulae rate, speech, and dental outcomes are essential for a comprehensive assessment of the effects of combined cleft lip and palate repair.

The surgical treatment of nonsyndromic craniosynostosis is one of the most common procedures performed by craniofacial surgeons. However, for residents and fellows, the high degree of difficulty and complex anatomy may result in slow progress along a steep learning curve. This is particularly important in the context of contemporary academic practice, where work-hour limits and other factors restrict operative exposure and opportunities for trainees to learn. These issues have prompted the development of surgical simulation modalities that, while prevalent in other surgical specialties, have not been fully adopted in reconstructive surgery.Among these resources is the Craniofacial Interactive Virtual Assistant - Professional Edition (CIVA-Pro), a procedural cognition simulator that is free of charge. By integrating 3-dimensional virtual animation, voice over, and high-definition intraoperative video, CIVA-Pro describes cardinal craniofacial surgery procedures in an engaging platform. In this study, a detailed, step-by-step description of the fronto-orbital advancement surgical technique to complement the corresponding CIVA-Pro module was presented. This synergistic combination of multimedia educational resources provides a unique didactic option for current trainees to prepare for surgery.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Orthognathic surgery plays an important role in restoring aesthetic facial contour, correcting dental malocclusion, and the surgical treatment of obstructive sleep apnea. However, the rate of complications following bimaxillary as compared with single-jaw orthognathic surgery remains unclear. The authors therefore sought to evaluate complication rates following bimaxillary as compared with single-jaw orthognathic surgery MATERIALS AND METHODS:: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify comparison groups. Preoperative characteristics and postoperative outcomes were compared between groups. The listed procedures have different operating times and characteristics with longer time expected in the bimaxillary osteotomies group. Regression analyses were performed to control for potential confounders. RESULTS:The 3 groups of interest included patients who underwent mandibular osteotomies (n = 126), LeFort I osteotomy (n = 194), and bimaxillary osteotomies (n = 190). These procedures have different operating times, with a longer time expected with bimaxillary osteotomies. Patients undergoing bimaxillary osteotomies had significantly higher rates of early wound complications, overall complications, longer mean operative time, and mean hospital length of stay. Performing bimaxillary osteotomies in the outpatient setting was an independent risk factor for wound complications (OR = 12.58; 95% CI: 1.66-95.20; P = 0.01), while an ASA class of 3 or more was an independent risk factor for overall complications (OR = 3.61; 95% CI: 1.02-12.75; P = 0.04) and longer hospital length of stay (β = 4.96; 95% CI: 2.64 - 7.29; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Surgery in the outpatient setting as well as patient American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class 3 or higher were independent factors for postoperative adverse events in patients undergoing bimaxillary surgery. Our findings highlight the importance of addressing modifiable risk factors preoperatively and the need for closer postoperative monitoring in this patient population for optimal outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the probability of survival of monolithic and porcelain veneered lithium disilicate crowns comprised by a conventional or modified core when loaded on marginal ridges. METHODS:Lithium disilicate molar crowns (n=30) were fabricated to be tested at mesial and distal marginal ridges and were divided as follows: (1) bilayered crowns with even-thickness 0.5mm framework (Bi-EV); (2) bilayered crowns with modified core design (Bi-M-lingual collar connected to proximal struts), and: (3) monolithic crowns (MON). After adhesively cemented onto composite-resin prepared replicas, mesial and distal marginal ridges of each crown (n=20) were individually cyclic loaded in water (30-300N) with a ceramic indenter at 2Hz until fracture. The 2-parameter Weibull was used to calculate the probability of survival (reliability) (90% 2-sided confidence bounds) at 1, 2, and 3 million cycles and mean life. RESULTS:The reliability at 1 and 2 million cycles was significantly higher for MON (47% and 19%) compared to Bi-EV (20% and 4%) and Bi-M (17% and 2%). No statistical difference was found between bilayered groups. Only the MON group presented crown survival (7%) at 3 million cycles. The mean life was highest for MON (1.73E+06), lowest for Bi-M (573,384) and intermediate for Bi-E (619,774). Fractographic analysis showed that the fracture originated at the occlusal surface. The highest reliability was found for MON crowns. The modified framework design did not improve the fatigue life of crowns. SIGNIFICANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Monolithic lithium disilicate crowns presented higher probability of survival and mean life than bilayered crowns with modified framework design when loaded at marginal ridges.

Bone cancer metastasis is extremely painful and decreases the quality of life of the affected patients. Available pharmacological treatments are not able to sufficiently ameliorate the pain and as cancer patients are living longer new treatments for pain management are needed. Decitabine (5-aza-2'-deoxycytidine), a DNA methyltransferases inhibitor, has analgesic properties in pre-clinical models of post-surgical and soft tissue oral cancer pain by inducing an up-regulation of endogenous opioids. In this study, we report that daily treatment with decitabine (2µg/g, i.p.) attenuated nociceptive behavior in the 4T1-luc2 mouse model of bone cancer pain. We hypothesized that the analgesic mechanism of decitabine involved activation of the endogenous opioid system through demethylation and reexpression of the transcriptionally silenced endothelin B receptor gene, Ednrb. Indeed, Ednrb was hypermethylated and transcriptionally silenced in the mouse model of bone cancer pain. We demonstrated that expression of Ednrb in the cancer cells lead to release of β-endorphin in the cell supernatant which reduced the number of responsive DRG neurons in an opioid-dependent manner. Our study supports a role of demethylating drugs, such as decitabine, as unique pharmacological agents targeting the pain in the cancer microenvironment.

Pressure injuries/ulcers are a global health issue, and there is a need for clinicians from many countries and continents to express their opinions on the terminology change (pressure ulcer to injury) and revised staging definitions. A convenience, opinion survey sample of clinicians from the Western Asia Gulf Region enrolled in a yearlong wound care course participated by expressing their opinion about these changes. Results reveal support for the pressure injury terminology and the revised staging definitions.

BACKGROUND:Since the inception of the integrated model, educational leaders have predicted its ongoing evolution, as the optimal plastic surgery curriculum remains a source of debate. With the now complete elimination of the "coordinated" pathway, the total number of integrated programs has arguably reached a plateau. As such, this study examines the current state of training in integrated residencies and re-evaluates the variability in the first 3 years of training observed previously. METHODS:Program information was obtained for all 68 integrated plastic surgery programs, of which rotation schedules were available for 59. Plastic surgery, general surgery, and surgical subspecialty exposures were quantified and compared. Inclusion of rotations "strongly suggested" by the Residency Review Committee and the American Board of Plastic Surgery was also examined. RESULTS:PGY1-3 plastic surgery exposure ranged from 3.5-25 months (mean 13.9 ± 5.4). General surgery rotations ranged from 5-22.5 months (mean 12.8 ± 4.7). Surgical subspecialty rotations ranged from 0-8 months (mean 3.6 ± 1.8). There was no difference in mean plastic surgery exposure between programs based within departments versus divisions (15.4 vs. 13.3 months; p=0.184). There remained significant variability in the inclusion of 18 non-plastic surgery rotations including the "strongly suggested" rotations. CONCLUSIONS:Plastic surgery exposure remains highly variable with over a 7-fold difference between programs. This suggests that programs are still sorting out the "ideal" curriculum. However, there is an overall trend towards earlier and increased plastic surgery exposure in PGY1-3, which now exceeds the average time spent on general surgery rotations.