Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:As the United States' population diversifies, eliminating disparities in health and healthcare has become increasingly important across all disciplines of medicine, including plastic and reconstructive surgery. This is evidenced by the growing body of literature in recent years focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No study to date has evaluated whether this research is progressing appropriately to promote tangible evidence-based interventions to reduce these disparities. METHODS:A systematic literature review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed to identify studies focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. A previously established public health framework for advancing health disparities research was used to inform analysis of the quality and progression of the included studies. This triphasic framework categorizes disparities research as follows: detecting (identifies and measures disparities in vulnerable populations), understanding (establishes determinants of disparities), or reducing (proposes and evaluates interventions for eliminating disparities). RESULTS:Ninety-five studies were identified between 1979 and 2016, with 61 (64.2%) published after 2010. The majority of studies (51.6%) were retrospective cohort or case-control studies (American Society of Plastic Surgery level III evidence). Fifty-eight (63.7%), 31 (34.1%), and 2 (2.2%) studies provided detecting-, understanding- and reducing-phase disparities research, respectively. Non-plastic and reconstructive surgery journals accounted for 70.5% of all articles and for most higher phase research articles, publishing 83.9% and 100% of second and third phase studies, respectively. Disparity categories investigated included race/ethnicity, age, income, insurance status/type, geography, and education level, with race/ethnicity being the most common (73.7%). The most commonly measured outcome was percent of subpopulation receiving reconstruction (63, 66.3%), followed by reconstruction type (14, 16.7%). Patient-, provider-, system-, and research-level factors were all identified as potential targets for interventions to reduce disparities. CONCLUSIONS:Despite a recent increase in literature focusing on postmastectomy breast reconstruction disparities, the majority focuses on identifying vulnerable populations with inadequate progression to second (understanding) and third (reducing) phases. Increasing research funding, availability of language-concordant and culturally concordant educational materials, and advocacy and sociopolitical awareness within the plastic surgery community is necessary to advance research on postmastectomy breast reconstruction and, ultimately, eliminate it.

Growing public awareness of hereditary breast cancers, notably BRCA1 and BRCA2, and increasing popularity of personalized medicine have led to a greater number of young adult patients presenting for risk-reduction mastectomies and breast reconstruction. Plastic surgeons must be familiar with treatment guidelines, necessary referral patterns, and particular needs of these patients to appropriately manage their care. Genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 is most often reserved for patients older than the age of consent, and can be performed in the young adult population (aged 18 to 25 years) with the appropriate preemptive genetic counseling. Subsequent risk-reduction procedures are usually delayed until at least the latter end of the young adult age range, and must be considered on an individualized basis with regard for a patient's level of maturity and autonomy. Prophylactic mastectomies in young adults also can serve to aid the unique psychosocial needs of this population, although the long-term psychological and physical ramifications must be considered carefully. With the development of nipple-sparing mastectomy and improvement in reconstructive techniques, risk-reducing surgery has become more accepted in the younger population. Immediate, implant-based reconstruction is a common reconstructive technique in these patients but requires extensive discussion regarding reconstructive goals, the risk of possible complications, and long-term implications of these procedures. Comprehensive, continuous support with multispecialty counseling is necessary throughout the spectrum of care for the high-risk, young adult patient.

BACKGROUND:Concerns exist that immediate breast reconstruction may delay adjuvant chemotherapy initiation, impacting oncologic outcomes. Here, we determine how post-operative complications impact chemotherapy timing, and identify factors associated with greater risk for delays. METHODS:Retrospective chart review identified patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction and adjuvant chemotherapy at a single institution from 2010 to 2015. Patients were analyzed based on occurrence of post-operative complications and time to chemotherapy. RESULTS:A total of 182 patients (244 breast reconstructions) were included in the study; 210 (86%) reconstructions did not experience post-operative complications, 34 (13.9%) did. Patients who experienced post-operative complications had a higher mean age (53.6 vs. 48.1 years, p=0.002), and higher rates of diabetes (23.5% vs. 3.8%, p<0.001).The complication group had delays in initiation of chemotherapy (56 vs. 45 days, p=0.017). Only the immediate autologous reconstruction subgroup demonstrated a statistically significant delay in initiation of chemotherapy.Patients who initiated chemotherapy >48.5 days were of higher mean age (55.9 vs. 50.7 years, p=0.074), had increased rates of diabetes (36.8% vs. 6.7%, p=0.053), and immediate autologous reconstruction (31.6% vs. 0%, p=0.027). A predictive model based on these findings determined that patients with at least 1 of these 3 risk factors have a 74% chance of experiencing prolonged times to chemotherapy initiation vs. 18% without risk factors (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS:Risk factors for delayed chemotherapy in the context of post-operative complications are age >51.7 years, diabetes, and autologous reconstruction. Reconstructive candidates who fit this profile are at highest risk and merit extra consideration and counseling.

Craniomaxillofacial congenital anomalies comprise approximately one third of all congenital birth defects and include deformities such as alveolar clefts, craniosynostosis, and microtia. Current surgical treatments commonly require the use of autogenous graft material which are difficult to shape, limited in supply, associated with donor site morbidity and cannot grow with a maturing skeleton. Our group has demonstrated that 3D printed bio-ceramic scaffolds can generate vascularized bone within large, critical-sized defects (defects too large to heal spontaneously) of the craniomaxillofacial skeleton. Furthermore, these scaffolds are also able to function as a delivery vehicle for a new osteogenic agent with a well-established safety profile. The same 3D printers and imaging software platforms have been leveraged by our team to create sterilizable patient-specific intraoperative models for craniofacial reconstruction. For microtia repair, the current standard of care surgical guide is a two-dimensional drawing taken from the contralateral ear. Our laboratory has used 3D printers and open source software platforms to design personalized microtia surgical models. In this review, we report on the advancements in tissue engineering principles, digital imaging software platforms and 3D printing that have culminated in the application of this technology to repair large bone defects in skeletally immature transitional models and provide in-house manufactured, sterilizable patient-specific models for craniofacial reconstruction.

BACKGROUND:Reconstructive trends and outcomes for nipple-sparing mastectomy continue to be defined. The graduated impact of breast size and mastectomy weight remains incompletely evaluated. METHODS:All patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy from 2006 to June of 2016 were identified. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed and stratified by mastectomy weight of 800 g or higher (large group), between 799 and 400 g (intermediate group), and less than 400 g (small group). RESULTS:Of 809 nipple-sparing mastectomies, 66 (8.2 percent) had mastectomy weights of 800 g or higher, 328 (40.5 percent) had mastectomy weights between 799 and 400 g, and 415 nipple-sparing mastectomies (51.3 percent) had mastectomy weights less than 400 g. Nipple-sparing mastectomies in the large group were significantly more likely to be associated with major mastectomy flap necrosis (p = 0.0005), complete nipple-areola complex necrosis (p < 0.0001), explantation (p < 0.0001), cellulitis treated with oral (p = 0.0008) and intravenous (p = 0.0126) antibiotics, abscess (p = 0.0254), and seroma (p = 0.0126) compared with those in the intermediate group. Compared with small nipple-sparing mastectomies, patients in the large group had greater major mastectomy flap necrosis (p < 0.0001), complete (p < 0.0001) and partial (p = 0.0409) nipple-areola complex necrosis, explantation (p < 0.0001), cellulitis treated with oral (p < 0.0001) and intravenous (p < 0.0001) antibiotics, abscess (p = 0.0119), and seroma (p < 0.0001). Patients in the intermediate group were more likely to experience major (p < 0.0001) and minor (p < 0.0001) mastectomy flap necrosis, complete (p = 0.0015) and partial (p < 0.0001) nipple-areola complex necrosis, cellulitis treated with oral antibiotics (p = 0.0062), and seroma (p = 0.0248) compared with those undergoing small nipple-sparing mastectomies. Larger mastectomy weights were significant predictors of complications on logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Reconstructive and ischemic complications in nipple-sparing mastectomy are progressively greater as mastectomy weight and breast size increase. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Risk, II.

The population is aging, and the prevalence of chronic wounds is increasing. Because neovascularization is essential for tissue repair and both local and systemic factors affect new blood vessel formation, we hypothesize that altering either pathway would reciprocally enhance wound healing in the aged. To test this hypothesis, p53 was locally suppressed and endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) were systemically mobilized in a murine model of senescent wound healing.Bilateral 6-mm full-thickness stented wounds were made on the dorsum of Zmpste24 mice. Animals received weekly topical p53 small interfering RNA (siRNA) (n = 25), weekly topical nonsense siRNA (n = 25), daily subcutaneous AMD3100 injections (n = 25), or daily subcutaneous saline injections (n = 25). Wounds were photographically assessed and harvested for reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, and immunostaining over 40 days. Circulating EPC levels were measured using fluorescence-activated cell sorting analysis.Local p53 siRNA significantly improved Zmpste24 wound healing (18 ± 2 vs 40 ± 3 days; P ≤ 0.0001). p53 siRNA significantly increased local provasculogenic factors (hypoxia-inducible factor 1 α, stromal cell-derived factor 1 α, and vascular endothelial growth factor; P ≤ 0.05) and decreased local proapoptotic factors (p53, PUMA, and Bax; P ≤ 0.05). Local p53 siRNA also significantly increased the number of circulating EPCs (8 ± 0.2% vs 2.6 ± 0.1%; P ≤ 0.0001). AMD3100 treatment also significantly improved wound healing (20 ± 2 vs 40 ± 3 days; P ≤ 0.0001) and increased EPCs mobilization (7.8 ± 0.4% vs 2.6 ± 0.1%; P ≤ 0.0001). In addition, systemic AMD3100 increased local provasculogenic factors (hypoxia-inducible factor 1 α, stromal cell-derived factor 1 α, and vascular endothelial growth factor; P ≤ 0.05) and decreased local proapoptotic factors (p53, PUMA, and Bax; P ≤ 0.05). Both treatments significantly increased the number of blood vessels in the wound bed (P ≤ 0.0001).The marked delay in Zmpste24 wound healing is significantly improved by local (p53 siRNA) and systemic (AMD3100) treatments. The resulting decrease in proapoptotic factors and increase in provasculogenic factors in the wound bed as well as the increased level of circulating EPCs appear to reverse age-related wound healing impairment by enhancing wound neovascularization.

BACKGROUND:Significantly fewer replantations have been performed at the authors' institution in recent years, with similar trends observed across the United States. A study of three national databases was performed to evaluate this trend, its possible cause, and national health care implications. METHODS:The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and National Inpatient Sample databases were queried for cases with a diagnosis of finger amputation over available years from 2000 to 2011. Data were weighted and analyzed to give appropriate national estimates of amputations, replantations, and related clinical variables. Trend analysis was performed using modified Poisson regression. RESULTS:Although workplace finger amputation rates decreased 40 percent from 2000 to 2010 (p < 0.0001), the overall finger amputation incidence did not change significantly (26,668 versus 24,215; p = 0.097). Compared with 930 replantations in 2001, only 445 were performed in 2011, more than a 50 percent decrease (p < 0.001). In all years, the majority of hospitals performing replantation performed only one (49.3 to 64.1 percent) each year, with a small minority (2.2 to 8.1 percent) performing more than 10 per year. In 2000, 120 hospitals (12.1 percent) performed at least one replantation, compared with only 80 hospitals (7.6 percent) in 2010, a 4.6 percent annual decline (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS:There has been a striking decline in digital replantations being performed, despite a relatively stable incidence of amputations. Apparently independent of declining work-related injuries, evolving clinical decision-making may be responsible for this trend. Decreasing replantation experience among hand surgeons lends credence to the development of specialized regional centers designed to treat these complex injuries.

Face transplantation has evolved over the last 12 years into a safe and feasible reconstructive solution, with good aesthetic and functional outcomes for patients with severe facial defects who are not amenable to reconstruction through conventional and autologous approaches. Among patients who underwent face transplantation to date, a significant proportion did so following trauma, mostly ballistic and thermal injuries. It is therefore important for trauma surgeons who deal with these injuries regularly to be familiar with the literature on face transplantation following traumatic injuries. In this study, we provide a focused review on this topic, with an emphasis on highlighting the limitations of conventional craniomaxillofacial reconstruction, while emphasizing data available on the risks, benefits, surgical indications, contraindications, as well as aesthetic and functional outcomes of face transplantation. The authors also provide an update on all face transplants performed to date including traumatic mechanisms of injury, and extent of defects. They finally describe 2 cases performed by the senior author for patients presenting with devastating facial ballistic and thermal injuries. The authors hope that this work serves as an update for the trauma surgery community regarding the current role and limitations of face transplantation as a craniomaxillofacial reconstructive option for their patient population. This can potentially expedite the reconstructive process for patients who may benefit from face transplantation.