Faculty Bibliography

The current standard of care for an alveolar cleft defect is an autogenous bone graft, typically from the iliac crest. Given the limitations of alveolar bone graft surgery, such as limited supply, donor site morbidity, graft failure, and need for secondary surgery, there has been growing interest in regenerative medicine strategies to supplement and replace traditional alveolar bone grafts. Though there have been preliminary clinical studies investigating bone tissue engineering methods in human subjects, lack of consistent results as well as limitations in study design make it difficult to determine the efficacy of these interventions. As the field of bone tissue engineering is rapidly advancing, reconstructive surgeons should be aware of the preclinical studies informing these regenerative strategies. We review preclinical studies investigating bone tissue engineering strategies in large animal maxillary or mandibular defects and provide an overview of scaffolds, stem cells, and osteogenic agents applicable to tissue engineering of the alveolar cleft. An electronic search conducted in the PubMed database up to December 2021 resulted in 35 studies for inclusion in our review. Most studies showed increased bone growth with a tissue engineering construct compared to negative control. However, heterogeneity in the length of follow up, method of bone growth analysis, and inconsistent use of positive control groups make comparisons across studies difficult. Future studies should incorporate a pediatric study model specific to alveolar cleft with long-term follow up to fully characterize volumetric defect filling, cellular ingrowth, bone strength, tooth movement, and implant support.

BACKGROUND:Facial feminization surgery is composed of a variety of craniomaxillofacial surgical procedures that are increasingly sought after by male-to-female transgender patients and by those seeking feminization of the face. Facial feminization surgery can play a prominent role in alleviating gender dysphoria. In consideration of an observed increase in gender-affirming procedures performed in recent years, a broad knowledge base in the techniques, outcomes, and challenges of facial feminization surgery should be established by surgeons offering these procedures. Our review was designed to critically appraise the current literature and inform future advancements in gender-affirming surgical practice. In addition, we detail a representative case to illustrate the senior author's approach to full facial feminization. METHODS:A comprehensive literature search of the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was conducted for studies published through June 2020 using following the search terms: "Face" OR "facial" OR "craniofacial" AND "Feminization" OR "Feminization Surgery" OR "Gender Reassignment" OR "Gender Affirming Surgery" OR "Gender Confirmation Surgery." Data on procedures, outcomes, patient age, follow-up time, complications, and patient satisfaction were collected. The data were categorized by facial thirds and then further stratified by facial feature. RESULTS:Our search yielded 388 articles. Thirty articles fit our inclusion criteria, and of these, 23 articles were included in the review. We extracted primary data pertaining to 3554 patients with an age range of 18 to 73 who underwent 8506 total procedures. Most of the procedures addressed the upper facial third (hairline, forehead, and brow), comprising 49.1% of total procedures performed. Further categorization by facial feature revealed that the most commonly addressed feature was the forehead (34.6% of procedures), followed by the nose (12.8%) and the chin (12.2%). In studies that used quantitative measures to gauge patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction was high. CONCLUSIONS:Facial feminization surgery seems to be safe, whether it is conducted in a single stage or as a staged procedure. Patients report high satisfaction and better gender congruency after facial feminization procedures. Further research is needed to establish best surgical practice and gauge patient satisfaction beyond the length of average follow-up and determine the frequency with which adjunctive procedures are sought out.

SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Digital communication platforms have had an impact on plastic surgery research. Although neurocognitive testing is an important tool for understanding the long-term developmental outcomes of congenital craniofacial conditions, testing has been geographically limited because of its interactive nature. Virtual neurocognitive testing is a facsimile version of in-person testing that allows researchers to overcome this limitation with high fidelity. Ten school-age subjects completed a neurocognitive assessment battery measuring intelligence quotient, academic achievement, and visuomotor skills at an average age of 7.8 ± 1.4 years. The subjects then retook the same battery through an identical virtual testing method approximately 1 year after the initial test. There were no significant differences in verbal intelligence quotient (p = 0.878), performance intelligence quotient (p = 0.813), and full-scale intelligence quotient (p = 0.982) scores obtained through in-person and virtual tests. There were no significant differences between academic achievement letter and word recognition (p = 0.999), math computation (p = 0.619), reading comprehension (p = 0.963), and spelling (p = 0.344) scores. There were no significant differences in visuomotor integration (p = 0.158), visual perception (p = 0.798), and motor coordination (p = 0.796) scores obtained through the two methods. The median at-home time to set up study equipment for the virtual testing was 5.0 minutes (interquartile range, 2.3 minutes). Seventy percent of participants reported that they preferred participating in research from home. All participants stated that the virtual research study was an overall positive experience. Virtual neurocognitive testing is an effective method of performing high-fidelity neurocognitive assessments while overcoming geographic barriers.

BACKGROUND:Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) following penile reconstruction in transgender, nonbinary, and other gender expansive (T/GE) populations has not previously been described, despite known risk factors in the population. Following T/GE penile reconstruction, care providers may underdiagnose STI without anatomically appropriate guidelines. METHODS:A detailed anonymous online survey of experiences of T/GE penile reconstruction patients was constructed with community input. Respondents were recruited from online support groups. RESULTS:128 T/GE people with experience of penile reconstruction responded to an anonymous survey posted in online support groups January to May 2020. Seven respondents (5.5%) self-reported one or more of the listed STIs at any point after penile reconstruction. All respondents with neourethras were diagnosed with localized STIs in nonurethral (extrapenile) locations only, and lack of vaginectomy was correlated with STI (p = 0.002). STIs were correlated with reporting sex with cisgender men (p = 0.001), transgender men (p = 0.009), and transgender women (p = 0.012). Of healthcare access variables, only receiving healthcare at a Community Health Center was correlated with STI history (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This exploratory survey indicates STI occurs after penile reconstruction in T/GE patients. Clinical confirmation is needed to identify specific risk factors and relative susceptibility of post-reconstruction anatomy to STIs. Given no previous surveillance recommendations for this population and the correlation of healthcare provider location with STI prevalence, underdiagnoses are likely. Based on the authors' clinical experience, we describe a urogenital screening algorithm following gender affirming penile reconstruction.

BACKGROUND:Following gender-affirming penile inversion vaginoplasty or vulvoplasty, patients may seek vulvar revision procedures for a variety of common aesthetic and functional concerns. These indications for revision and accompanying techniques are not well-described in the literature. METHODS:Patients who underwent vulvar revision surgery at the authors' institution were identified, and patient demographics, surgical indications, operative details, and complications were described. Common complaints requiring external genital revision were sorted into four categories: clitoral, labial, introital, and urethral. RESULTS:Thirty-five patients with a history of vaginoplasty underwent vulvar revision between May of 2017 and December of 2019. The mean age at surgical correction was 38.9 years. Ten patients (28.6 percent) had undergone prior secondary procedures (range, 1 to 3). Mean follow-up after revision surgery was 10.7 ± 8.7 months (range, 0 to 30.6 months). The majority of patients underwent concurrent revisions in multiple "categories". Labial aesthetic concerns were most common (n = 27, 77.1 percent), followed by clitoral (n = 20, 57.1 percent), urologic (n = 17, 48.6 percent), and introital complaints (n = 12, 34.3 percent). Twelve patients (34.3 percent) had canal stenosis requiring concurrent robot-assisted canal revision with peritoneal flaps. Complications included labial abscess (n = 1) and deep vein thrombosis (n = 1). Three patients (8.6 percent) underwent subsequent external genital revisions. Management approaches and surgical techniques for each of these common revision categories are provided. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:As more individuals seek vaginoplasty and vulvoplasty, surgeons must be prepared to address a range of common aesthetic and functional complaints requiring vulvar revision. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic, IV.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To elucidate long-term sequelae of radiation therapy (RT) in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, a multi-center prospective study, Clinical Registry of Dental Outcomes in Head and Neck Cancer Patients (OraRad), was established with tooth failure as its primary outcome. We report tooth failure and associated risk factors. METHODS:Demographics, cancer and dental disease characteristics were documented in 572 HNC patients at baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after RT. Eligible patients were age 18 or older, diagnosed with HNC, and receiving RT to treat HNC. Tooth failure during follow-up was defined as losing a tooth or having a tooth deemed hopeless. Analyses of time to first tooth-failure event and number of teeth that failed used Kaplan-Meier estimators, Cox regression, and generalized linear models. RESULTS:At 2 years, the estimated fraction of tooth failure was 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.3%-21.3%). Number of teeth that failed was higher for those with fewer teeth at baseline (p<0.0001), greater reduction in salivary flow rate (p=0.013), and non-compliance with daily oral hygiene (p=0.03). Patients with dental caries at baseline had higher risk of tooth failure with decreased salivary flow. Patients who were oral hygiene non-compliant at baseline but compliant at all follow-up visits had the fewest teeth that failed; greatest tooth failure occurred in participants who were non-compliant at baseline and follow-up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite pre-RT dental management, substantial tooth failure occurs within 2 years after RT for HNC. Identified factors may help to predict or reduce risk of post-RT tooth failure.