Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Acute rejection (AR) is a common complication in facial transplant (FT) patients associated with allograft edema and erythema. Our study aims to demonstrate the feasibility of using software-based 3-dimensional (3D) facial analysis to quantify edema as it resolves during/after AR treatment in an FT patient. METHODS:Our patient is a 23-year-old man who underwent a face and bilateral hand allotransplant in August 2020. The Vectra H1 (Canfield, Fairfield, NJ) portable scanner was used to capture 3D facial images at 8 time points between postoperative day (POD) 392 and 539. The images were analyzed with the Vectra Software using a rejection-free image (POD 539) as a control. RESULTS:Edema increased in the periorbital, lower third, and submandibular regions before AR treatment (POD 392-415). At POD 448, total facial edema was reduced to near baseline values in response to plasmapheresis and thymoglobulin (+156.94 to +28.2 mL). The fastest and most notable response to treatment was seen in the periorbital region, while some edema remained in the submandibular (+19.79 mL) and right lower third (+8.65 mL) regions. On POD 465, after the initial improvement, the edema increased but was resolved with steroid use. Facial edema did not correlate with the histopathological evaluation in our patient. CONCLUSIONS:We demonstrated the feasibility of analyzing 3D facial images to quantify edema during/after AR treatment in an FT patient. Our analysis detected edema changes consistent with AR followed by an improvement after treatment. This technology shows promise for noninvasive monitoring of FT patients.

BACKGROUND:We aimed to histomorphometrically evaluate the effects of Leucocyte-Platelet-Rich Fibrin (L-PRF), with and without the combination of a bone grafting material, for alveolar ridge preservation using an in vivo canine model. MATERIAL AND METHODS/METHODS:Seven dogs (Female Beagles, ~18-month-old) were acquired for the study. L-PRF was prepared from each individual animal by drawing venous blood and spinning them through a centrifuge at 408 RCF-clot (IntrasSpin, Intra-Lock, Boca Raton, FL). L-PRF membranes were obtained from XPression fabrication kit (Biohorizons Implant Systems, Inc., AL, USA). A split mouth approach was adopted with the first molar mesial and distal socket defects treated in an interpolated fashion of the following study groups: 1) Empty socket (negative control); 2) OSS filled defect 3) L-PRF membrane; and 4) Mix of Bio-Oss® with L-PRF. After six weeks, samples were harvested, histologically processed, and evaluated for bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO), vertical/horizontal ridge dimensions (VRD and HRD, respectively), and area of coronal soft tissue infiltration. RESULTS:BAFO was statistically lower for the control group in comparison to all treatment groups. Defects treated with Bio-Oss® were not statistically different then defects treated solely with L-PRF. Collapsed across all groups, L-PRF exhibited higher degrees of BAFO than groups without L-PRF. Defects filled with Bio-Oss® and Bio-Oss® with L-PRF demonstrated greater maintenance of VRD relative to the control group. Collapsed across all groups, Bio-Oss® maintained the VRD and resulted in less area of coronal soft tissue infiltration compared to the empty defect. Soft tissue infiltration observed at the coronal area was not statistically different among defects filled with L-PRF, Bio-Oss®, and Bio-Oss® with L-PRF. CONCLUSIONS:Inclusion of L-PRF to particulate xenograft did not promote additional bone heading at 6 weeks in vivo. However, we noted that L-PRF alone promoted alveolar socket regeneration to levels comparable to particulate xenografts, suggesting its potential utilization for socket preservation.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this investigation is to determine if the nasal form of patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) treated with pre-surgical nasoalveolar molding (NAM) therapy, primary lip-nose surgery, and post-surgical Nostril Retainer (PSNR) is different from patients treated with pre-surgical NAM and primary lip and nose surgery alone. DESIGN/METHODS:A cross-sectional, retrospective review of 50 consecutive non-syndromic patients with UCLP: 24 treated with NAM and primary lip-nose surgery followed by PSNR (Group I) compared to 26 patients treated with NAM and primary lip-nose surgery without PSNR (Group II). Polyvinyl siloxane nasal impressions were performed at the average age of 12 months and 6 days. Bilateral measurements of alar width at maximum convexity, total alar base width, nasal tip projection, columella length, and nostril aperture width and height were recorded. Statistical comparison of cleft versus non-cleft side nasal measurements were performed within Group I and Group II, as well as comparison of the difference between the two groups. RESULTS:Cleft side nasal dimension was statistically significantly better in Group I than Group II across all measures except nasal projection (P<0.05). Group I showed less difference between the cleft and non-cleft side in all six measurements than Group II (p<0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a significant difference in the nasal shape of patients who underwent PSNR compared to those that did not. The patients who used PSNR showed better nasal shape at the average age of 12 months than the control group.

Objective: Compare short term surgical outcomes and trends in cleft lip repair with or without gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP). Design: Retrospective review of the ACS NSQIP-Pediatric database from 2014 to 2019. Patients: Patients between 2 and 18 months of age undergoing any initial cleft lip repair, with or without GPP, were selected via relevant CPT^® codes. Main Outcome Measures: Patient demographics, comorbidities, 30-day readmissions and post-operative complications are assessed. Results: From 2014 to 2019, a total of 6269 patients were identified, of which 6.67% underwent GPP (n = 418). Patients undergoing GPP were significantly older with an average age of 9 months compared to 5 months in the non-GPP group (P <.001). Co-morbidities were similar amongst both cohorts, although patients undergoing GPP were more likely to have a higher ASA class (P =.006), cardiac risk factors (P =.012) and syndromic diagnosis (P <.001). There were no differences in 30-day short term surgical outcomes. GPP was associated with increased operative time by ~25 minutes when compared to cleft lip repair alone (P <.001). Conclusion: GPP was not associated with increased 30-day postoperative complications, readmission, reoperation, or total length of hospital stay, and was associated with an increased operative time of 25 minutes. Children undergoing GPP were significantly older in age and were more likely to have a higher ASA class/cardiac risk factors.

Liposuction is a relatively safe surgical procedure, with most complications being minor in nature. However, there are a few life-threatening complications that should not be underestimated. We present a case of a patient who developed bilateral pneumothoraces, pneumomediastinum, and pneumoperitoneum after combined liposuction and abdominoplasty. Although this presentation is rare, clinicians should keep a high index of suspicion in patients presenting with shortness of breath, chest pain, and/or abdominal pain after liposuction.

Although the ethical and technical feasibility of face transplant (FT) has been established, current literature lacks consensus on functional outcomes monitoring for recipients. This systematic review aims to appraise and summarize the current literature on tools used to assess motor functional outcomes in FT. This study complied with the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). On September 15, 2020, two reviewers conducted independent electronic searches using medical literature databases, without language or time frame limitations. Eligibility criteria included studies reporting on the evaluation of motor functional outcomes in face transplant recipients. Of 451 papers found in the literature, 12 fulfilled the study inclusion criteria. The reported tools included clinical scales/examinations, electromyography, optical movement tracking devices, muscle volumetric measurement using magnetic resonance imaging, and software-based video and photo analyses. The frequency of data collection varied from every three months to every year. Publications reporting on motor functional outcomes tracking tools vary broadly and demonstrate a lack of consensus. Although quantitative measurements are desirable, adapted clinical scales are still the current standard of care.