Faculty Bibliography

Background/UNASSIGNED:The number of men undergoing cosmetic surgery is increasing in North America. Objectives/UNASSIGNED:To determine the incidence and risk factors of major complications in males undergoing cosmetic surgery, compare the complication profiles between men and women, and identify specific procedures that are associated with higher risk of complications in males. Methods/UNASSIGNED:A prospective cohort of patients undergoing cosmetic surgery between 2008 and 2013 was identified from the CosmetAssure database. Gender specific procedures were excluded. Primary outcome was occurrence of a major complication in males requiring emergency room visit, hospital admission, or reoperation within 30 days of the index operation. Univariate and multivariate analysis evaluated potential risk factors for major complications including age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, diabetes, type of surgical facility, type of procedure, and combined procedures. Results/UNASSIGNED:Of the 129,007 patients, 54,927 underwent gender nonspecific procedures, of which 5801 (10.6%) were males. Women showed a higher mean age (46.4 ± 14.1 vs 45.2 ± 16.7 years, P < 0.01). Men had a higher BMI (27.2 ± 4.7 vs 25.7 ± 4.9 kg/m2, P < 0.01), and were more likely to be smokers (7.1% vs 5.7%, P < 0.01) when compared to women. Men demonstrated similar overall major complication rates compared to women (2.1% vs 2.1%, P = 0.97). When specific complications were analyzed further, men had higher hematoma rates, but lower incidence of surgical site infection. Additionally, major complications after abdominoplasty, facelift surgery, and buttock augmentation were noted to preferentially affect males. On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of major complications in males included BMI (RR 1.05), hospital or ambulatory surgery center procedures (RR 3.47), and combined procedures (RR 2.56). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Aesthetic surgery in men is safe with low major complication rates. Modifiable predictors of complications included BMI and combined procedures. Level of Evidence 2/UNASSIGNED/:

OBJECTIVE:The Council on Medical Student Education in Pediatrics and Association of Pediatric Program Directors developed a Pediatric Subinternship (CAPS) Curriculum for use with an individualized learning plan (ILP). The authors determined which learning objectives (LOs) pediatric subinterns selected when provided the CAPS Curriculum, summarized students' self-reported progress, and determined feasibility of ILPs in subinternship. METHODS:Students from 10 medical schools completed a standardized ILP during pediatric subinternship. Students listed > 3 LOs using CAPS Curriculum as a guide and self-assessed progress. Students reviewed ILPs with faculty preceptors; preceptors completed questionnaires on time/effort spent. Authors mapped student LOs to CAPS curriculum objectives and grouped in ACGME competency domains. RESULTS:204 students documented 850 LOs. Authors mapped student LOs to 60 of the 68 (88%) CAPS objectives. Students most commonly chose Patient Care LOs with top three related to 1)oral presentations, 2)time management, and 3)management plans. Student LOs not in CAPS addressed nutrition, child development, test interpretation, and cost. No students chose LOs related to health disparities, shared-decision making, informed consent, or patient safety. Students self-reported significant progress on most (73%) LOs. Faculty met with students >1 time and 93% met for total <1 hour. According to faculty, students required little or no help completing ILPs. CONCLUSIONS:Students chose a wide range of LOs when provided the CAPS Curriculum. Revision to include additional student-identified LOs would enhance CAPS Curriculum's comprehensiveness. Using this curriculum with an ILP during subinternship is feasible but gaps between educator-identified and student-identified objectives require further exploration.

BACKGROUND:Currently, no consensus metric for measuring academic productivity within plastic surgery exists. The h-index is widely used, as it captures both the quantity and quality of an individual's contribution. However, discrepancies in online reporting make accurate h-index calculation challenging. This study highlights inconsistencies within plastic surgery by assessing differences in reporting of the h-index and other measures of academic productivity across online scientific databases. METHODS:Plastic surgery faculty at institutions with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency programs were identified and searched across four databases: Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and the National Library of Medicine (PubMed). The total number of publications, citations, and h-index were recorded for each author and analyzed using a Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS:Seven hundred twenty-two faculty members were included in this study. Reporting of publications was highest in Google Scholar and lowest in Web of Science. Because of incomplete information (PubMed) and underuse (Google Scholar), h-index could be assessed only between Web of Science and Scopus, where the average discrepancy in citations and h-index was 722 and 7.0 per author, respectively. Discrepancies were more significant among faculty members holding a Ph.D. degree, higher academic rank, or belonging to the male gender. CONCLUSIONS:Inconsistencies between online scientific databases profoundly affect plastic surgeons. Given the importance placed on metrics such as the h-index, it is imperative that the plastic surgery community push for solutions that ensure more reliable, transparent, and cohesive reporting of academic productivity.

WE43 Mg alloy, composed of Mg, Yttrium, Rare Earth elements, and Zirconium, has proved to be a suitable candidate for production of resorbable osteosynthesis implants in both clinical and experimental settings. In a previous study we tested biocompatibility and degradation properties of untreated (as-cast) and artificially aged (T-5) WE43 Mg-alloys as subperiosteal implants on a maxillofacial sheep model. Both the alloy compositions showed excellent biocompatibility, however, with respect to degradation rate, the as-cast form showed increased degradability compared with the T-5. In the present study, we tested the same alloy composition (i.e. as-cast and T-5) to assess their biological behavior and degradation pattern when implanted as endosteal implants on a calvarial bone sheep model. Six implants in form of cylindrical discs were tested in 6 sheep, one per composition of each disc was placed in two monocortical cranial defect created with high speed trephine bur in the parietal bone. After euthanasia at 6 weeks histomorphological analysis of the bone/implant specimens was performed. WE43-as cast showed higher degradation rate, increased bone remodeling, gas pockets formation and osteolysis compared with the T5 alloy. WE43-T5 showed greater bone/implant interface stability, and seemed to be more suitable for fabrication of endosteal bone screws.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Cerebrospinal fluid diversion via ventricular shunt is a common treatment for hydrocephalus. Change in cranial morphology associated with a sutural fusion has been termed shunt-related or induced craniosynostosis (SRC) or craniocerebral disproportion (CCD). We present a series of patients with SRC who underwent cranial vault remodeling (CVR) and our treatment algorithm. METHODS:Thirteen patients were retrospectively reviewed who had SRC and CVR; 92% of patients had a ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placed for largely intraventricular hemorrhage of prematurity (69% of patients) at a mean age of 2.2 months. The shunt revision rate was 38.4%, and 54% of patients had a programmable shunt placed initially. RESULTS:The mean age at time of CVR was 3.6 years old. The most commonly affected sutures (CT confirmed) were the sagittal and coronal sutures, with three patients exhibiting pancraniosynostosis. The mean time from placement of the shunt to CT evidence of sutural fusion was 2.0 years. Abnormal head shape was noted in all 13 patients; 11 of these also had either chronic headaches, papilledema, seizures, or behavioral changes in the setting of functional shunt. Mean follow-up after the initial CVR was 3.3 years. No shunt infections were attributed to the CVR. The families of all patients were contacted and reported improvement in head shape with 60% of families reporting improvement in behavior, 75% reported improvement in headaches, and 40% reported decrease in seizure frequency or intensity. Shunt setting or type was not routinely changed after CVR. CONCLUSIONS:Our threshold for CVR in SRC is met when shunt malfunction has been ruled out and there are (1) radiographic evidence of craniosynostosis, (2) signs of increased ICP clinically or radiographically, and (3) cranial dysmorphism, i.e., dolichocephaly. The majority of cases of SRC result in improved cranial morphology in addition to some abatement of the symptoms of increased intracranial pressure. Early involvement of an experienced craniofacial/neurosurgical team could allow for early diagnosis and intervention which may prevent progression to more severe deformities. SRC is a complex entity, with multiple etiologies, and a future study is needed.

This study evaluated comparatively two configurations (powder and putty) of a composite biomaterial based on PLGA (Poly(lactide-co-glycolide)/nanoescale hydroxyapatite (ReOss®, Intra-Lock International) through microscopic morphology, in vitro cytotoxicity, biocompatibility and in vivo response as a bone substitute. SEM and EDS characterized the biomaterials before/after grafting. Cytocompatibility was assessed with murine pre-osteoblasts. Osteoconductivity and biocompatibility were evaluated in White New Zealand rabbits. Both configurations were implanted in the calvaria of eighteen animals in non-critical size defects, with blood clot as the control group. After 30, 60 and 90 days, the animals were euthanized and the fragments containing the biomaterials and controls were harvested. Bone blocks were embedded in paraffin (n=15) aiming at histological and histomorphometric analysis, and in resin (n=3) aiming at SEM and EDS. Before implantation, the putty configuration showed both a porous and a fibrous morphological phase. Powder revealed porous particles with variable granulometry. EDS showed calcium, carbon, and oxygen in putty configuration, while powder also showed phosphorus. After implantation EDS revealed calcium, carbon, and oxygen in both configurations. The materials were considered cytotoxic by the XTT test. Histological analysis showed new bone formation and no inflammatory reaction at implant sites. However, the histomorphometric analysis indicated that the amount of newly formed bone was not statistically different between experimental groups. Although both materials presented in vitro cytotoxicity, they were biocompatible and osteoconductive. The configuration of ReOss® affected morphological characteristics and the in vitro cytocompatibility but did not impact on the in vivo biological response, as measured by the present model.

BACKGROUND:Recent health care changes have encouraged efforts to decrease costs. In plastic surgery, an area of potential cost savings includes appropriate use of pathologic examination. Specimens are frequently sent because of hospital policy, insurance request, or habit, even when clinically unnecessary. This is an area where evidence-based guidelines are lacking and significant cost-savings can be achieved. METHODS:All specimen submitted for pathologic examination at two hospitals between January and December of 2015 were queried for tissue expanders, breast implants, fat, skin, abdominal pannus, implant capsule, hardware, rib, bone, cartilage, scar, and keloid. Specimens not related to plastic surgery procedures were excluded. Pathologic diagnosis and cost data were obtained. RESULTS:A total of 759 specimens were identified. Of these, 161 were sent with a specific request for gross examination only. There were no clinically significant findings in any of the specimens. There was one incidental finding of a seborrheic keratosis on breast skin. The total amount billed in 2015 was $430,095. CONCLUSIONS:The infrequency of clinically significant pathologic examination results does not support routine pathologic examination of all plastic surgery specimens. Instead, the authors justify select submission only when there is clinical suspicion or medical history that warrants evaluation. By eliminating unnecessary histologic or macroscopic examination, significant cost savings may be achieved.

This study presents a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cleft and craniofacial surgery. All studies reporting on RCTs in cleft and craniofacial surgery were identified on PubMed using the search terms "cleft," "velopharyngeal insufficiency," "velopharyngeal dysfunction," "nasoalveolar molding," "gingivoperiosteoplasty," "Pierre Robin sequence," "craniofacial," "craniosynostosis," "craniofacial microsomia," "hemifacial microsomia," "hypertelorism," "Le Fort," "monobloc," "distraction osteogenesis," "Treacher Collins," and "Goldenhar." Studies were excluded if they were not randomized, did not focus primarily on topics related to cleft or craniofacial surgery, included repeat publications of data, or were unavailable in English. Studies were evaluated on demographic and bibliometric data, study size, specific area of focus, and findings reported. Four hundred forty-seven unique studies were identified. One hundred eighty-three papers met inclusion criteria (115 cleft lip and palate, 65 craniofacial, and 3 spanning both disciplines). Sixty-six (36%) were dedicated to topics related to surgical techniques. There were no studies comparing current cleft lip or soft palate repair techniques and no studies on cleft rhinoplasty. The most frequently reported surgical topic was cleft palate. There were several studies on orthognathic techniques which compared distraction osteogenesis to traditional advancement. Most craniofacial operations, such as cranial vault remodeling and frontofacial advancement/distraction, were not represented. Several standard operations in cleft and craniofacial surgery are not supported by Level I evidence from randomized controlled trials. Our community should consider methods by which more RCTs can be performed, or redefine the acceptable standards of evidence to guide our clinical decisions.