Purushottam Nagarkar

AlloDerm versus dermamatrix in immediate expander-based breast reconstruction: A preliminary comparison of complication profiles and material compliance

Background: Allogenic acellular dermal matrix can be used in single-stage, expander-based immediate and delayed breast reconstructions to provide inferolateral prosthesis coverage and reconstruction of the inframammary fold. Two allogenic dermal matrix products currently available, AlloDerm and DermaMatrix, differ in method of storage, cost, and intraoperative preparation. The purpose of this study was to determine, first, whether there are any significant differences in the rates of postoperative complications, material compliance, or capsule characteristics; and second, if differences are present, whether they had any impact on final outcome. Methods: After institutional review board approval, a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 30 patients (50 breasts) who underwent immediate expander-based breast reconstructions using either AlloDerm (n = 25) or DermaMatrix (n = 25) dermal substitutes was performed. Primary endpoints were (1) incidence of seroma, (2) wound infection, (3) number of days requiring drains, (4) rate of tissue expansion, (5) final expanded volume, (6) final implant volume, and (7) neovascularization. Results: The mean follow-up was 6.7 months. During this time, no significant differences in the complication profile were found between the two groups. Both dermal substitutes were found to be well incorporated, with evidence of neovascularization, on histologic examination. Conclusions: This study demonstrated no significant differences in the rate of complications or material compliance. The total complication rate was 4 percent, with seroma and wound infection being the most common complications. The authors’ preliminary findings indicate no significant difference between implant/expander-based reconstructions using AlloDerm and those using DermaMatrix.

Use of the serratus anterior fascia flap for expander coverage in breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND Postmastectomy partial submuscular tissue expander placement can prevent the upper pole fullness commonly seen with complete submuscular prosthesis placement. The resultant inferior and lateral margins require coverage to prevent prosthesis exposure. The fascial layer overlying the serratus anterior muscle can be used as an alternative to previously defined techniques to provide composite lateral coverage. This method offers adequate coverage, prevents expander lateralization, and minimizes use of allogenic material. This study reports the anatomy, surgical procedure, clinical outcomes, and aesthetics following use of the serratus anterior fascial flap for lateral expander coverage in postmastectomy expander-based breast reconstruction. METHODS Twenty-two patients (31 breasts) who underwent breast reconstruction with serratus fascia were included in a retrospective case-note analysis after approval by the institutional review board. Demographics, perioperative factors, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction, and aesthetics were recorded as relevant endpoints. Ten fresh cadaver hemichests were dissected, and the serratus fascia for each was measured for length and width. RESULTS At a mean follow-up of 197 days (range, 71 to 370 days), seroma occurred in two breasts, wound infection occurred in one breast, partial mastectomy skin flap necrosis occurred in four breasts, and minor wound dehiscence occurred in one breast. There were no incidences of capsular contracture or hematoma. Four patients (five breasts) reported very mild tightness or banding in the lateral chest wall. The mean length of cadaver serratus fascia was 164.3 mm and the mean width was 122.8 mm. CONCLUSION The serratus anterior fascia flap is a versatile and safe alternative for providing vascularized composite lateral prosthesis coverage in expander-based breast reconstruction.

Fixing the match: a survey of resident behaviors.

Background: The authors studied residency applicant attitudes toward rank list creation, communication with programs, and the impact of these factors on their performance in the Match. Methods: An anonymous, 26-question, multiple-choice, online survey was distributed to the program coordinators of every Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education–accredited program participating in the National Resident Matching Program for whom e-mail addresses were available. The survey addressed five areas: (1) demographics and interview characteristics, (2) preinterview and interview factors, (3) postinterview contact, (4) importance of various factors in rank list creation, and (5) Match outcome. Survey responses were analyzed with Microsoft Excel. Results: A total of 1179 responses were received. It was not possible to calculate a response rate, because the number of residents receiving the survey was not known. The majority of respondents (78 percent) reported postinterview contact with a program. A large portion of respondents (42 percent) considered such contact to be important in the creation of their rank lists. Half of all respondents admitted to exaggerating their interest in a program during or after an interview. The majority of respondents (87.5 percent) received no assistance in covering the costs of “second-look” visits to programs. Conclusions: Applicants may be modifying their rank lists in response to post-interview contact from programs; furthermore, they usually have no assistance in paying for the cost of second looks. To level the playing field for students and programs alike, the authors propose that the National Resident Matching Program modify residency interview rules to (1) disallow any postinterview contact between programs and students, and (2) disallow second looks.

Reply: So you want to become a plastic surgeon? What you need to do and know to get into a plastic surgery residency.

PATHWAYS TO PLASTIC SURGERY It is a truth universally acknowledged that plastic surgery is the most elusive residency in the United States. Unlike most other major surgical subspecialties, there are two well-defined routes to becoming a plastic surgeon—the independent and integrated pathways.1 The integrated pathway consists of 6-year training programs that accept graduating medical students, whereas the independent pathway consists of 3-year training programs that accept graduates of general surgery, neurological surgery, orthopedic surgery, oral and maxillofacial surgery, otolaryngology, and urology residency programs. Both pathways are very competitive—in 2011, only 44 percent of U.S. seniors applying to integrated plastic surgery programs matched into the specialty.2 For comparison, the next lowest match rate belonged to orthopedic surgery, at 77 percent. The competitiveness of the independent pathway has diminished slightly since the training program was lengthened from 2 years to 3 years, but it remains in high demand, with the match rate ranging between 39 and 82 percent over the past 5 years.3,4 Clearly, plastic surgery program directors enjoy a buyer’s market. Thus, the obvious question is, What do you need to do to maximize your chances of getting into a great plastic surgery residency? For the answers, we looked at the best available data in the context of the senior author’s (R.J.R) 20-year experience chairing a large academic plastic surgery program, and our recent experience in the integrated pathway (P.N. and A.P.), and the independent pathway (B.P.) application process.

No-drain DIEP Flap Donor-site Closure Using Barbed Progressive Tension Sutures.

Background: The use of progressive tension sutures has been shown to be comparable to the use of abdominal drains in abdominoplasty. However, the use of barbed progressive tension sutures (B-PTSs) in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap donor-site closure has not been investigated. Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on patients with DIEP flap reconstruction in a 3-year period at 2 institutions by 2 surgeons. Patients were compared by method of DIEP donor-site closure. Group 1 had barbed running progressive tension sutures without drain placement. Group 2 had interrupted progressive tension closure with abdominal drain placement (PTS-AD). Group 3 had closure with only abdominal drain placement (AD). Data collected included demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes. Results: Seventy-five patients underwent DIEP reconstruction (25 B-PTS, 25 PTS-AD, and 25 AD). Patient characteristics—age, body mass index, comorbidities, smoking status, and chemotherapy—were not significantly different between groups. Rate of seroma was 1.3% (B-PTS = 0%, PTS-AD = 4%, AD = 0%), wound dehiscence 16% (B-PTS = 8%, PTS-AD = 16%, AD = 24%), and umbilical necrosis 5.3% (B-PTS = 0%, PTS-AD = 0%, AD = 16%). No hematomas were observed in any patients. No statistically significant difference was found between complication rates across groups. Conclusions: Use of B-PTSs for abdominal closure after DIEP flap harvest can obviate the need for abdominal drains. Complication rates following this technique are not significantly different from closure using progressive tension suture and abdominal drain placement. This practice can prevent the use of abdominal drains, which can promote patient mobility, increase independence upon discharge, and contribute to patient satisfaction.

Role of the Cephalic Trim in Modern Rhinoplasty.

Summary: There have been a variety of techniques describing nasal tip refinement. The cephalic trim has long been accepted as a means for shaping the nasal tip, but it has been misinterpreted by many surgeons. The improper use of a cephalic trim poses potential long-term sequelae. During analysis of the nasal tip, several anatomic findings must be noted to ensure appropriate correction as well as to avoid pitfalls. These findings include the type of boxy tip or bulbous tip, cartilage strength, and the skin quality. The goal of this article is to describe five types of cephalic trim techniques to assist in refining the nasal tip and an algorithm for selection of the appropriate technique based on these anatomic findings.

The pedicled subpectoral fascia flap for expander coverage in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a novel technique.

BACKGROUND In expander-based breast reconstruction, providing adequate tissue coverage of the prosthesis is necessary to prevent complications. The authors have previously described the use of the serratus anterior fascia for this purpose-but when this fascia is unavailable or inadequate, the subpectoral fascia can be used. This study describes the anatomy of the subpectoral fascia, the surgical technique for harvesting it, and an algorithm for choosing between the serratus and subpectoral fascia flaps. Clinical and functional outcomes following use of the subpectoral fascia in expander-based breast reconstruction are reported. METHODS Thirteen patients (17 breasts) were included in the study. After approval by the institutional review board, retrospective case note analysis was performed for demographic and perioperative factors. Postoperative complications including capsular contracture, seroma, hematoma, wound dehiscence, and infection were recorded. Cadaver studies involving 10 hemichests were undertaken. The subpectoral fascia for each hemichest was dissected and measured for length and width. RESULTS At a mean follow-up of 589 days (range, 115 to 960 days), seroma occurred in one breast, wound infection occurred in one breast, and minor wound dehiscence occurred in one breast. There were no incidences of capsular contracture or hematoma. The mean +/- SD length of cadaver subpectoral fascia was 148 +/- 26.6 mm and the mean width was 83 +/- 32.1 mm. CONCLUSIONS The subpectoral fascia flap is a novel and safe option for providing vascularized lateral or inferior coverage of prosthesis in expander-based breast reconstruction. Its harvest and use are not associated with adverse clinical outcomes.

Facial Nerve Axonal Analysis and Anatomical Localization in Donor Nerve: Optimizing Axonal Load for Cross-Facial Nerve Grafting in Facial Reanimation.

Background: Donor nerve axonal count over 900 in two-stage reconstructions using cross-facial nerve grafts is possibly associated with improved outcomes in facial reanimation. Facial nerve axonal analysis was performed to determine the ideal location for optimizing axonal load. Correlation of axonal number, branch diameter, and age was also assessed. Methods: Twenty-eight fresh unpreserved cadaveric hemifaces were dissected exposing the extracranial facial nerve branches. Axonal counts at 2-cm intervals from the pes anserinus along branches inserting into the zygomaticus major muscle were taken, noting position relative to the zygomatic arch, posterior ramus border, lateral border of the zygomaticus muscle, and anterior parotid gland border. Nerves were fixed, sectioned, and stained with SMI-31 antineurofilament stain for digital axonal analysis. Results: All specimens had one or more intraparotid zygomatic branches with over 900 axons, and 96 percent had an extraparotid branch with over 900 axons. The likelihood that a zygomatic branch would have over 900 axons at its last intraparotid point (mean, 6 mm posterior to the parotid border) was 92 percent (range, 67 to 100 percent) in contrast to 61 percent (range, 25 to 100 percent) when sampled at the first extraparotid point (mean, 14 mm anterior to the parotid border). Nerve cross-sectional area was positively correlated to its axonal count (R° = 78 percent; p < 0.0001), with nerve diameter over 0.6 mm predicting over 900 axons. Age did not correlate with axonal counts. Conclusions: Branches with adequate axonal load were found in all specimens. The likelihood of adequate branch selection improved from 61 percent to 92 percent with short retrograde intraparotid dissection. Nerve diameter correlated with axonal load.

Correlation Between Facial Nerve Axonal Load and Age and Its Relevance to Facial Reanimation

Background: Two-stage facial reanimation procedures with a cross-facial nerve graft often have unsatisfactory results in the older patient. Although the cause of result variability is likely multifactorial, some studies suggest that increased donor nerve axonal load improves function of a free muscle transfer after a cross-facial nerve graft. This study attempts to characterize the relationship between age and facial nerve axonal load. Methods: Sixty-three fresh cadaveric heads were dissected to expose the facial nerve. For each hemiface, two facial nerve samples were taken: one proximal as the nerve exits the stylomastoid foramen, and one distal at the buccal branch (at a point 1 cm proximal to the anterior parotid border). Nerve samples were stained and quantified. Correlation analysis was completed using a Pearson correlation coefficient. Results: Thirty-six female and 27 male cadavers were dissected; their average age was 71 years (range, 22 to 97 years). At the proximal (r = −0.26; p < 0.01; n = 104) and distal (r = −0.45; p < 0.0001; n = 114) sampling points, there was a significant negative correlation between age and axonal load. Conclusions: As age increases, the axonal load of the facial nerve decreases at the buccal and zygomatic branches approximately 1 cm proximal to the anterior parotid border. The authors previously suggested this location as significant for cross-facial nerve coaptation. These results propose that decreasing axonal load can be a factor in the unsatisfactory outcomes of cross-facial grafting in the aging population. Moreover, this underscores the importance of recruiting more donor axons in attempting to improve facial reanimation in the older patient.

Varied Definitions of Nasolabial Angle: Searching for Consensus Among Rhinoplasty Surgeons and an Algorithm for Selecting the Ideal Method

Background: The nasolabial angle (NLA) is an important aesthetic metric for nasal assessment and correction. Although the literature offers many definitions, none has garnered universal acceptance. Methods: To gauge the consensus level among practitioners, surveys were administered to a convenience sample of rhinoplasty surgeons soliciting practice characteristics, self-assessment of rhinoplasty experience and expertise, and preferred NLA definition. Choices of NLA definition included the angle between: (A) columella and line intersecting subnasale and labrale superius; (B) columella and line tangent to philtrum; (C) nostril long axis and Frankfort perpendicular; and (D) nostril long axis and vertical facial plane. Results: Of the 82 total respondents, mean age was 50 years (range, 30–80years), and mean professional experience was 17 years (range, 0–67 years). Nineteen described themselves as novice rhinoplasty surgeons, 27 as intermediates, and 36 as experts. Mean number of lifetime rhinoplasties performed was 966 (range, 0–10,000). Twenty respondents (24%) agreed with definition A, 27 (33%) with B, 16 (20%) with C, and 13 (16%) with D. Six chose “other,” offering their own explanations of NLA. Self-identified novices were more likely to prefer definition D than were experts (P = 0.009). Conclusions: No majority consensus was reached regarding the definition of NLA. Each method has its benefits and drawbacks, and establishing a single one may be unnecessary and even counterproductive in some cases. Having options available means that surgeons can tailor to each encounter, as long as they adopt a systematic methodology. We submit an algorithm to facilitate this effort.