Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS/OBJECTIVE:Fibula flaps are routinely used for osseous reconstruction of head and neck defects. However, single-barrel fibula flaps may result in a height discrepancy between native mandible and grafted bone, limiting outcomes from both an aesthetic and dental standpoint. The double-barrel fibula flap aims to resolve this. We present our institution's outcomes comparing both flap designs. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of all patients undergoing free fibula flap mandibular reconstruction at our institution between October 2008 and October 2020. Patients were grouped based on whether they underwent single-barrel or double-barrel reconstruction. Postoperative outcomes data were collected and compared between groups. Differences in categorical and continuous variables were assessed using a Chi-square test or Student's t-test, respectively. RESULTS:Out of 168 patients, 126 underwent single-barrel and 42 underwent double-barrel reconstruction. There was no significant difference in postoperative morbidity between approaches, including total complications (P = .37), flap-related complications (P = .62), takeback to the operating room (P = .75), flap salvage (P = .66), flap failure (P = .45), and mortality (P = .19). In addition, there was no significant difference in operative time (P = .86) or duration of hospital stay (P = .17). After adjusting for confounders, primary dental implantation was significantly higher in the double-barrel group (odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-7.6; P = .019). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Double-barrel fibula flap mandibular reconstruction can be performed safely without increased postoperative morbidity or duration of hospital stay relative to single-barrel reconstruction. Moreover, the double-barrel approach is associated with higher odds of primary dental implantation and may warrant further consideration as part of an expanded toolkit for achieving early dental rehabilitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III Laryngoscope, 2021.

OBJECTIVE:To provide a critical overview of current radiation modalities for keloid management. BACKGROUND:Despite multimodal therapies, keloids that can develop following injury are poorly controlled. A number of studies have suggested that post-excisional radiation therapy can reduce rates of keloid recurrence. However, existing reports span multiple radiation modalities, including brachytherapy, electron beam radiation, and photon radiation. In this review, we describe the advantages and disadvantages of commonly used radiation techniques and highlight their efficacy in keloid management. RESULTS:Electron beam radiation and high-dose rate brachytherapy are the two most commonly used modalities for adjuvant radiotherapeutic management of keloids and can provide effective keloid control but may be suited for different kinds of keloid growth patterns. Increasing biologically equivalent dose (BED) likely improves rates of control, though the clinical significance of this finding remains to be elucidated. Though radiation treatments are associated with acute and chronic side effects, the risk of developing a secondary malignancy is minimal. CONCLUSIONS:While radiation therapy is a promising modality for treating keloids, more studies of a prospective, randomized nature are needed to standardize its utility.

Nonthumb metacarpal (NTMC) fractures are common in the incarcerated and the underinsured civilian populations. However, certain social challenges contribute to high rates of follow-up noncompliance and complications in these unique populations. We conducted a retrospective review of the treatments, outcomes, and complications in the incarcerated and civilian patient population who were treated at a tertiary public hospital for NTMC fractures. Even though incarcerated patients were more likely than their civilian counterparts to undergo operative interventions, both populations showed similar complication profiles as well as low rates of treatment compliance and follow-up. This article affirms that incarcerated individuals do not receive inferior care compared with civilians, and both the incarcerated and underinsured civilians would benefit from careful consideration of treatment algorithms and additional access to hand therapy.

The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of parathormone (PTH) administered directly to the implant's surface prior to insertion, using a large translational animal model. Sixty titanium implants were divided into four groups: (i) Collagen, control group, where implants were coated with Type-I Bovine-collagen, and three experimental groups, where implants received varying doses of PTH: (ii) 12.5, (iii) 25, and (iv) 50 μg, prior to placement. Fifteen female sheep (~2 years old, weighing ~65 kg) received four implants in an interpolated fashion in C3, C4 or C5 vertebral bodies. After 3-, 6- and 12-weeks, samples were harvested, histologically processed, qualitatively and quantitatively assessed for bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area fraction occupancy (BAFO). BIC yielded lower values at 6-weeks for 50 μg relative to the control group, with no significant differences, when compared to the 12.5- and 25-μg. No significant differences were detected at 6-weeks between collagen, 12.5- and 25-μg groups. At 3- and 12-weeks, no differences were detected for BIC among PTH groups. With respect to BAFO, no significant differences were observed between the control and experimental groups independent of PTH concentration and time in vivo. Qualitative observations at 3-weeks indicated the presence of a more mature bone near the implant's surface with the application of PTH, however, no significant differences in new bone formation or healing patterns were observed at 6- and 12-weeks. Single local application of different concentrations of PTH on titanium implant's surface did not influence the osseointegration at any time-point evaluation in low-density bone.

OBJECTIVE:Primary cleft nasal repair can include septal reconstruction. We hypothesize that primary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty have fundamental differences that render these procedures as distinct surgical entities. DESIGN/METHODS:Systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases performed on pediatric cleft and general adult septoplasty techniques through December 2021. (PROSPERO ID CRD42022295763). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES/METHODS:Collected data included information on septal dissection, septal detachment, and management of the bony and cartilaginous septum. RESULTS:Twenty-eight pediatric cleft septoplasty and 229 adult septoplasty studies were included. Dissection in primary cleft septoplasty was limited to the anterocaudal septum, while secondary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty techniques entailed wide exposures of the cartilaginous septum with or without exposure of the perpendicular plate of the ethmoid. In primary cleft septoplasty, detachment of the septum was mostly limited to the nasal spine and anterior base of the cartilaginous septum, while secondary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty included detachment from the vomer, and ethmoid. In the few reports of cartilage excision during primary cleft septoplasty, removal was limited to the anterior inferior border of the septum, while secondary cleft septoplasty and adult septoplasty included excision of the cartilaginous and bony septum. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Primary cleft septoplasty is distinct from septoplasty performed on facially mature patients. More specifically, septal dissection and detachment are limited to the anterior caudal area during primary lip repair, with rare removal of cartilage or bone. Given these differences, the authors suggest the term "septal reset" to describe septoplasty performed during primary cleft nasal repair.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The purpose of this study was to compare the demographic differences of the most common peripheral nerve compressions in the upper extremity-carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), ulnar nerve compression (UNC) at the elbow, combined CTS and UNC, radial tunnel syndrome (RTS), and posterior interosseous nerve syndrome (PINS)-as a means to better understand the etiologies of each. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:< .05). RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .001). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:The demographics of patients with various compressive neuropathies were not homogeneous, suggesting different etiologies.

Oral cancer pain is attributed to the release from cancers of mediators that sensitize and activate sensory neurons. Intraplantar injection of conditioned media (CM) from human tongue cancer cell line HSC-3 or OSC-20 evokes nociceptive behavior. By contrast, CM from noncancer cell lines, DOK, and HaCaT are non-nociceptive. Pain mediators are carried by extracellular vesicles (EVs) released from cancer cells. Depletion of EVs from cancer cell line CM reverses mechanical allodynia and thermal hyperalgesia. CM from non-nociceptive cell lines become nociceptive when reconstituted with HSC-3 EVs. Two miRNAs (hsa-miR-21-5p and hsa-miR-221-3p) are identified that are present in increased abundance in EVs from HSC-3 and OSC-20 CM compared to HaCaT CM. The miRNA target genes suggest potential involvement in oral cancer pain of the toll like receptor 7 (TLR7) and 8 (TLR8) pathways, as well as signaling through interleukin 6 cytokine family signal transducer receptor (gp130, encoded by IL6ST) and colony stimulating factor receptor (G-CSFR, encoded by CSF3R), Janus kinase and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (JAK/STAT3). These studies confirm the recent discovery of the role of cancer EVs in pain and add to the repertoire of algesic and analgesic cancer pain mediators and pathways that contribute to oral cancer pain.

BACKGROUND:Recipient selection is an important determinant of surgical outcomes in facial transplantation (FT). Appropriately, each FT program develops their own guidelines for recipient selection criteria. Currently, there is no resource to simultaneously assess and identify similarities and differences between these guidelines. Such information could be useful in distinguishing areas of FT that are well understood from those that could benefit from further exploration. METHODS:We performed a systematic review of the scientific literature from inception to June 18, 2021, using Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus to identify articles pertaining to recipient selection criteria. Clinical trials were identified through the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. United States and international program websites were reviewed for patient-facing information. RESULTS:Our systematic review yielded 90 suitable articles, 8 clinical trials, and 7 program websites containing the recipient selection criteria of 24 different FT programs. The most reported on recipient criteria were age, positive human immunodeficiency viral status (HIV+), positive hepatitis C viral status, psychosocial stability, and medical compliance. Other criteria were rarely addressed, such as blindness and recipient immune status. CONCLUSIONS:Guidelines among different face transplant programs are changing over time. We found consensus on certain recipient selection criteria, but the majority remain program or surgeon dependent, emphasizing that FT is still an evolving procedure. Although most programs reported on their recipient selection criteria, the rationale was often missing. Further discussion about recipient selection criteria and the reasoning behind employing or changing them will help advance the field.

SUMMARY:Defects involving the midface and maxilla pose unique challenges to reconstructive surgeons. The maxilla serves as the central keystone of the face and interfaces with various other facial subunits to affect form and function. Reconstructive methods range from prosthetics to free tissue transfer, and the indications for different options are reviewed here. Finally, special considerations including management of the orbit, dental rehabilitation, and future directions are discussed.