Ali A. Qureshi

Endothelin-1 promotes osteoprogenitor proliferation and differentiation in fetal rat calvarial cell cultures

Endothelin-1 (ET-1), a peptide produced by vascular endothelial cells, has been suggested to be one of the signaling factors between vascular and osteoblastic cells during bone growth and remodeling. The osteoinductive effects of ET-1 were tested on fetal rat calvaria which have the ability to form bone nodules in culture. ET-1 (10(-10) to 10(-6) M) dose-dependently increased cell proliferation. The effect of ET-1 (10(-8) M) on proliferation was greater than that of dexamethasone (Dex; 10(-8) M). ET-1 also increased the number of bone nodules by 146% over untreated cells, which coincided with a 3.1-fold increase in alkaline phosphatase activity. Limiting dilution assays showed that ET-1 treatment increased the number of osteoprogenitors (CFU-AP and CFU-OB) beyond what would be expected by a proliferative effect alone, indicating that ET-1 also stimulated osteoblast differentiation. Osteocalcin mRNA expression was upregulated as shown by Northern blot analysis. Using cDNA microarray analysis, ET-1 treatment resulted in an expression profile that included an upregulation of 163 genes and expressed sequence tags. Simultaneous addition of ET-1 and Dex to the medium further increased the number of bone nodules and alkaline phosphatase activity over either treatment alone. Our results show that ET-1 promotes both osteoblastic proliferation and differentiation and that the effects of ET-1 and Dex on differentiation are cooperative.

Shock wave therapy in wound healing.

Background: Recently, shock wave therapy has been investigated as an adjuvant therapy in the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. There are several devices with focused and unfocused shock waves that have been administered to a heterogenous group of wounds. Encouraging preclinical and clinical studies suggest that shock wave therapy may promote wound healing with little or no adverse events, prompting investigations into the mechanism of action and additional clinical trials. Methods: The peer-reviewed literature within the past 10 years was studied using an evidence-based approach. Results: Preclinical studies demonstrate that shock wave therapy affects cellular function and leads to the expression of several genes and elaboration of growth factors known to promote wound healing. Limited clinical trials are encouraging for the use of shock wave therapy in the treatment of acute and chronic wounds. Serious complications, including wound infections, bleeding, hematomas, seromas, and petechiae, have not been reported in the largest of these studies. Conclusions: Shock wave therapy is an intriguing physical modality that may play an important role as an adjuvant therapy in wound healing. To date, there is no consensus on which wounds are most likely to benefit from shock wave therapy and what the optimal power, degree of focus, and frequency or number of cycles should be. Well-designed preclinical and clinical studies are necessary to better understand shock wave therapy in wound healing.

MIS training in Canada: a national survey of general surgery residents

BackgroundGeneral surgery trainees’ perceptions regarding their own laparoscopic training remain poorly defined. The objective of this survey was to identify and evaluate learner experiences with laparoscopic procedures in general surgery programs on a national level.MethodsTwo hundred eighty-four residents were identified and contacted at English-speaking general surgery programs across Canada. Each was asked to complete a web- or paper-based survey regarding their demographics, experiences with basic and advanced minimally invasive surgery (MIS) procedures, and perceived barriers to training.ResultsTwo hundred fifty-two of 284 (89%) surveyed residents responded. Eighty-seven percent of the residents had access to a skills lab that taught MIS techniques; however, standardized MIS curricula were implemented 53% of the time. Eighty percent of residents felt that skills lab training translated to improved performance in the OR. Although 90% of residents felt that they would be comfortable performing basic laparoscopic procedures, only 8% stated they would be comfortable performing advanced procedures at the end of their training. Moreover, 90% of general surgery residents felt that it was the academic surgical department’s responsibility to teach both basic and advanced procedures, and 35% of respondents felt their surgical program was meeting this requirement. Half of the residents felt they had limited opportunity to be a primary surgeon because an MIS fellow was present.ConclusionsThere exists a wide disparity between the expectations of residents and their actual experience. The majority of residents are concerned that they will not acquire sufficient laparoscopic skills during their training to perform advanced cases in practice. Additionally, the balance between resident and fellow-level cases needs to be more clearly defined as the majority of respondents identified the presence of a MIS fellow as a negative learning influence. Finally, although most centers had a surgical skills lab, 47% of respondents felt that the curriculum was not standardized and this also needs to be addressed.

Resident Cosmetic Clinic: Practice Patterns, Safety, and Outcomes at an Academic Plastic Surgery Institution

BACKGROUND Comprehensive aesthetic surgery education is an integral part of plastic surgery residency training. Recently, the ACGME increased minimum requirements for aesthetic procedures in residency. To expand aesthetic education and prepare residents for independent practice, our institution has supported a resident cosmetic clinic for over 25 years. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the safety of procedures performed through a resident clinic by comparing outcomes to benchmarked national aesthetic surgery outcomes and to provide a model for resident clinics in academic plastic surgery institutions. METHODS We identified a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent procedures through our resident cosmetic clinic between 2010 and 2015. Major complications, as defined by CosmetAssure database, were recorded and compared to published aesthetic surgery complication rates from the CosmetAssure database for outcomes benchmarking. Fishers exact test was used to compare sample proportions. RESULTS Two hundred and seventy-one new patients were evaluated and 112 patients (41.3%) booked surgery for 175 different aesthetic procedures. There were 55 breast, 19 head and neck, and 101 trunk or extremity aesthetic procedures performed. The median number of preoperative and postoperative visits was 2 and 4 respectively with a mean follow-up time of 35 weeks. There were 3 major complications (2 hematomas and 1 infection requiring IV antibiotics) with an overall complication rate of 1.7% compared to 2.0% for patients in the CosmetAssure database (P = .45). CONCLUSIONS Surgical outcomes for procedures performed through a resident cosmetic clinic are comparable to national outcomes for aesthetic surgery procedures, suggesting this experience can enhance comprehensive aesthetic surgery education without compromising patient safety or quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4 Risk.

Uneventful versus Successful Reconstruction and Outcome Pathways in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction with Acellular Dermal Matrices.

Background: Meaningful data to help guide resource allocation for staged tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction are currently lacking. The authors seek to differentiate uneventful from successful reconstruction and identify common outcome pathways and factors that portend a deviation from an uneventful, two-stage, two-operation course. Methods: A retrospective analysis of expander/implant reconstructions with or without acellular dermal matrix (2003 to 2009) was performed. Related postreconstructive events (including mastectomy flap necrosis, seroma, wound dehiscence, cellulitis, explantation, hematoma, and capsular revisions) were assessed for 2 years. Uneventful reconstruction was defined as exchange to breast implant within 2 years of tissue expander placement without complications, whereas successful reconstruction was defined as exchange to breast implant within 2 years with or without complications. Factors affecting reconstructive success were analyzed, and patterns of postreconstructive events were summarized as outcome pathways. Results: Four hundred thirteen patients (295 with acellular dermal matrix and 118 without), with 602 breasts (432 with acellular dermal matrix and 170 without) underwent reconstruction. Forty-six percent of patients (48 percent with acellular dermal matrix and 40 percent without), experienced uneventful reconstruction. Reconstructive success was achieved in 337 patients (82 percent; 82.0 percent with acellular dermal matrix and 80.5 percent without), with reconstructive failure occurring in 58 patients. Multiple logistic regression analyses determined that cellulitis, seroma, and skin necrosis (OR, 15.8, 7.7, and 8.4, respectively) were highly predictive of reconstructive failure. The authors identified 10 distinct pathways experienced by tissue expander/implant patients that were characterized by specific postreconstructive events. Conclusion: The present study will facilitate discussions among patients, providers, and payers by providing a framework for understanding the myriad outcome pathways in implant-based reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Nonsurgical Vulvovaginal Rejuvenation With Radiofrequency and Laser Devices: A Literature Review and Comprehensive Update for Aesthetic Surgeons

Nonsurgical vulvovaginal rejuvenation (NVR) is growing in popularity as a treatment for restoration of youthful female genitalia. Numerous radiofrequency (RF) and laser devices have entered the market claiming improvement in vaginal laxity and genitourinary syndrome of menopause. There is a paucity of evidence existing concerning the effectiveness of these devices for both pre- and postmenopausal women with laxity and/or atrophy at the histologic and clinical level. Therefore, the goal of this review is to scrutinize the peer-reviewed data on NVR with RF and laser devices, identify gaps in existing literature, and propose opportunities for further investigation.

Impact of Time Interval between Radiation and Free Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

Background To evaluate whether the timing of surgery after radiation in autologous breast reconstruction affects major complications. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 454 free flaps (331 patients) for breast reconstruction at a single institution from 2003 to 2014. Charts were reviewed for age, BMI, laterality, flap type (TRAM, msTRAM, DIEP), surgeon, donor vessels (IMA, TD), chemotherapy, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, DVT, venous anastomoses, vein size, and time from radiation (none, < 12 months, or ≥ 12 months). The primary outcome of major complications was defined as partial/total flap loss, thrombosis, ischemia, or hematoma requiring return to the operating room. To identify independent predictors of major complications, a multivariate logistic regression was constructed. Alpha = 0.05 indicated significance in all tests. Results Average age was 47.4 ± 8.4. Free flaps consisted of msTRAM (41.1%), TRAM (29.6%), or DIEP (29.3%). The donor vessel was IMA in 66.9% of flaps or TD in 33.0% of patients with 90.7% using only one vein and 9.3% with two veins. The average IMA/TDV size was 2.5 cm ± 0.5. Preoperative radiation occurred in 31.2% of flaps. There were 54 flaps with at least one major complication (11.7%). On multivariate regression, only flap type (OR =4.04, p < .01) and vein size (OR = 0.13, p = 0.02) independently predicted major complications. Conclusion There was no significant difference in major complications between flaps who had reconstruction within 12 months and greater than 12 months after radiation. Only having a more muscle sparing technique or smaller vein size were independent risk factors for major complications.

A descriptive analysis of gastric cancer specimen processing techniques

Adherence to guidelines for adequate gastric cancer specimen assessment is poor in North America. Inadequate staging and poor prognosis were noted in some series when these guidelines are not met. Recent advances have been made in standardizing cancer pathology reports in Canada; however, the uptake of these reporting systems is unknown for gastric cancer. A survey of pathologists in Ontario was performed to outline the processing techniques and practices for assessing gastric cancer specimens.

Mastopexy and Mastopexy-Augmentation

&NA; Mastopexy and mastopexy‐augmentation are aesthetic breast surgeries that seek to create youthful, beautiful appearing breasts. Age, hormonal changes, or weight loss can lead to alterations that require addressing the skin envelope and breast parenchyma. Many surgical approaches have been described including periareolar, vertical, and Wise pattern techniques, but most modern mastopexies include manipulation of the breast parenchyma to improve the longevity of breast ptosis correction. Mesh support of the ptotic breast is an extension of this paradigm shift and seeks to restore the lost strength of the support structures of the breast. Despite initial controversy, single stage mastopexy‐augmentation has been demonstrated to be a safe option for appropriately selected and informed patients who desire both correction of shape and volume. Revisions may still be necessary based on patient and surgeon goals for correction. Evolving technologies will likely continue to enhance the ability of aesthetic plastic surgeons to provide pleasing, durable correction of breast ptosis.

Commentary on: Resident and Program Director Perceptions of Aesthetic Training in Plastic Surgery Residency: An Update

To understand the current state of affairs of aesthetic surgery education in plastic surgery residency, the attitude of the key stakeholders, namely program directors and residents, must be understood. In their article, Hashem et al compare perceptions of aesthetic training in plastic surgery residency as measured by a survey in 2015 to surveys done in 2008 and 2011.1 The authors analyzed responses from 33 program directors and 224 residents enrolled in the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) Resident Program. Hashem et al developed a survey initially conducted in 2008 and again in 2011 to understand modalities and extent of resident exposure to aesthetic surgery and resident confidence in performing aesthetic procedures. The survey was updated and modified by the senior author for evaluation in 2015. Despite low survey response rates, the authors identified resident cosmetic clinics (RCC), attending cosmetic practices and cadaver dissections to be the most preferred modalities of education. Facial aesthetic surgery continued to be an area of weakness in perceived resident preparedness for independent practice. The study, however, has a major selection bias with regards to resident perceptions as all survey participants were ASAPS Resident Program members with presumably variable levels of interest in ultimately pursuing aesthetic surgery in independent practice. The authors should be congratulated on helping set the stage for an understanding of the current state of aesthetic surgery education in plastic surgery training. Findings that program directors and residents have high levels of confidence in aesthetic surgery of the breast is not surprising, despite current lower rates of dedicated aesthetic surgery rotations as a part of residency training than in 2008 or 2011. Aesthetic surgery of the breast has major overlap with reconstructive breast surgery, which includes both implant-based and free tissue reconstruction of the breast. Residents who participate in reconstructive breast surgery after oncologic resection are actively learning principles of aesthetic surgery and restoring “normal.” It is natural for this skill set to translate over to aesthetic surgery of the breast that includes breast augmentation and mastopexy among other procedures. Interestingly, facial aesthetic surgery (including blepharoplasty, facelift, and rhinoplasty) was identified as an area that plastic surgery trainees had lower confidence with performing independently. A previous study by Silvestre et al identified that facial aesthetic surgery has the greatest variability in exposure as measured by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case logs for plastic surgery residents.2 While the authors cite that plastic surgery is the only training program to set a minimum number of cases for aesthetic surgery, different programs across the country will inherently have different