Thomas D. Samson

DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: A comparison of outcomes

Background: Studies comparing similar and sizable numbers of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and pedicled transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstructions are lacking. The authors hoped to determine whether the DIEP flap has advantages over the pedicled TRAM flap for breast reconstruction. Methods: The authors retrospectively reviewed the records of women undergoing breast reconstruction over a 9-year period at a single institution. Patients were grouped by type of reconstruction: DIEP or pedicled TRAM. Only patients with at least 3 months of postoperative follow-up were studied. Results: A total of 190 women underwent unilateral breast reconstructions (96 DIEP and 94 pedicled TRAM flaps). The patient groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, preoperative chest wall irradiation and abdominal operations, and cancer stage. The median hospital stay for the DIEP group was shorter than that for the pedicled TRAM group (4 versus 5 days, p < .001). Operative time for the DIEP group (5:53 hours) was longer than that for the pedicled TRAM group (4:46 hours, p < .001). The fat necrosis rates for the pedicled TRAM group were higher (58.5 percent) than those for the DIEP group (17.7 percent, p < .001). Abdominal wall hernias occurred more frequently in pedicled TRAM (16.0 percent) than DIEP patients (1.0 percent, p < .001). Abdominal wall bulge rates were similar for both groups (DIEP 9.4 percent versus pedicled TRAM 14.9 percent). Conclusions: DIEP flap reconstruction can be performed with lower morbidity rates and shorter hospital stays than pedicled TRAM reconstruction. Specifically, fat necrosis and abdominal wall hernias are less common in DIEP patients than in pedicled TRAM patients, while flap failure and abdominal wall bulging rates are similar in the two patient groups. These data support the DIEP flap as the preferred option over the pedicled TRAM flap for autologous breast reconstruction in postmastectomy patients.

The deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction in overweight and obese patients

The authors retrospectively reviewed the computerized records of 71 women undergoing 80 deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions after mastectomy over a 1-year period. There were 33 normal, 26 overweight, and 12 obese patients. No statistically significant difference in flap complications was found between groups. Overall fat necrosis rates were 11.4 percent for the normal-weight patients, 6.7 percent for the overweight patients, and 6.7 percent for the obese patients. Postoperative hospital time was similar for all groups. The occurrence of abdominal wall fascial laxity was uncommon and similar for all groups. Large (>900 g) reconstructions were completed without prohibitive complications in the reconstruction flap. The DIEP flap represents a significant advance in autologous breast tissue reconstruction. Although concerns regarding fat necrosis rates in DIEP flaps have been voiced, the authors did not see an increasing rate of fat necrosis in their overweight and obese patients, and their overall rate of fat necrosis is comparable to rates reported for free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps. Also, increasing body mass index did not seem to affect the rate of delayed complications of the abdominal wall, such as abdominal wall hernia or bulging. Although it was not statistically significant, the authors did observe a trend toward increased wound-healing complications with increasing body mass index. Their data also support the claim that the complete sparing of the rectus abdominis muscles afforded by the DIEP flap avoids abdominal wall fascial bulging or defects often seen in obese TRAM reconstruction patients. Because flap and wound complication rates are similar or superior to those of other autologous tissue reconstruction techniques and the occurrence of abdominal wall defects is all but eliminated, the DIEP flap likely represents the preferred autologous breast reconstruction technique for overweight and obese patients.

Repair of infected abdominal wall hernias in obese patients using autologous dermal grafts for reinforcement

Background: Reconstruction of large, infected abdominal wall hernias in obese patients can be extremely challenging. A novel approach to abdominal wall reconstruction in a contaminated setting without the use of prosthetic materials is introduced. Methods: Two patients with massive abdominal wall hernias and infected mesh underwent removal of mesh and abdominal wall reconstruction with the component separation technique. Panniculectomy was performed and a dermal graft was obtained by defatting and deepithelializing the specimen. The dermal graft was then applied in an onlay fashion over the fascial closure or used to bridge a fascial gap. Results: One morbidly obese woman underwent reconstruction with onlay dermal graft reinforcement. She is hernia-free at 16 months. A second obese woman, with two enterocutaneous fistulae, had reconstruction with a dermal graft placed to bridge the midline fascial gap. She is hernia-free at 20 months. Conclusions: Autologous reconstruction of abdominal wall hernias, in the setting of infected prosthetic material, provides an excellent opportunity for successful closure of the defect. Failure of component separation is most commonly due to fascial separations at the midline. Autologous dermal grafts provide an ideal reinforcement of these fascial edges in a contaminated environment.

Evidence-based medicine: The cleft lip nasal deformity.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES After studying this article, the participant should be able to: (1) Describe the components of unilateral and bilateral secondary cleft lip nasal deformity. (2) Discuss current methods of assessing the deformity and outcomes. (3) Discuss primary treatment options including the use of preoperative orthopedics, nasal molding techniques, and the primary cleft rhinoplasty. (4) Design a treatment plan for cleft patients that will optimize the outcome of nasal appearance and function. (5) Discuss the evidence regarding outcomes of current practices, and describe areas where more research is needed. SUMMARY This is the third Maintenance of Certification article on the secondary cleft lip nose deformity. In the first article, Guyuron defined the deformities and described techniques for the definitive (adult) rhinoplasty. The second article, by Zbar and Canady, presented evidence regarding the assessment, surgical treatment, and outcomes from the literature published between 1999 and 2009. In this article, the authors summarize important points from the first two articles and then concentrate on the evidence for the following topics: (1) methods currently used in evaluating the severity of the deformities; (2) methods used in evaluating outcomes of different treatments; (3) benefits of rhinoplasty performed at the time of the lip repair and evidence for the effect of rhinoplasties performed after infancy but before maturity; (4) presurgical orthopedics and nasoalveolar molding; (5) common surgical techniques used in primary cleft rhinoplasties; and (6) impact of the nasal deformity on quality of life. Overall, there is little high-level evidence regarding the outcomes of cleft nasal deformity treatment, leaving much room for future study.

A Multidisciplinary Evaluation of Prescribing Practices for Prophylactic Antibiotics in Operative and Nonoperative Facial Fractures.

Background:Evidence supports short-term perioperative prophylaxis for facial fractures. It is unknown, however, whether there is any professional consensus on how to manage these injuries. No multidisciplinary evaluation of the prophylactic antibiotic prescribing patterns for neither operative nor nonoperative facial fractures has been performed. Aim:To evaluate the prophylactic antibiotic prescribing patterns of multiple specialties in operative and nonoperative facial fractures. Methods:A 14 question anonymous online-based survey was distributed to members of the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgeons (ASMS) and the American Association of Facial Plastic Surgeons to evaluate current practices. Results and Conclusions:205 respondents, including 89 plastic surgeons, 98 otolaryngologists, 12 oral and maxillofacial surgeons, and 7 with double board certification practicing throughout the United States with ranging experience from 11 to 30 years. As expected, preoperative, perioperative, or postoperative prophylactic antibiotics are either “always” or “sometimes” prescribed, 100% of the time with more varied practice upon further inspection. A total of 85.1% either “always” or “sometimes” use antibiotics while awaiting surgery. Dentate segment fractures are the most frequent type of facial fractures to receive prophylactic antibiotics for both operative (90.5%) and nonoperative (84.1%) fractures. Duration of antibiotic use is more varied with the majority providing 3 to 7 days despite current evidence. First generation cephalosporins alone are prescribed by 49% of respondents, which may not adequately cover oral flora. There is no multidisciplinary consensus for prophylactic antibiotics for specific operative fracture types or nonoperative facial fractures, an area with little published evidence.

Evidence-based medicine: Mandible fractures.

Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the anatomy and subunits of the mandible. 2. Review the cause and epidemiology of mandible fractures. 3. Discuss the preoperative evaluation and diagnostic imaging. 4. Understand the principles and techniques of mandible fracture reduction and fixation. Summary: The management of mandibular fractures has undergone significant improvement because of advancements in plating technology, imaging, and instrumentation. As the techniques in management continue to evolve, it is imperative for the practicing physician to remain up-to-date with the growing body of scientific literature. The objective of this Maintenance of Certification article is to present a review of the literature so that the physician may make treatment recommendation based on the best evidence available. Pediatric fractures have been excluded from this article.

Structural Fat Grafting to Improve Reconstructive Outcomes in Secondary Cleft Lip Deformity

Objective To describe the technique and results of structural fat grafting in cleft lip revision, including patient satisfaction and aesthetic outcome. Design Retrospective case series Setting Multidisciplinary cleft care center. Patients All patients who underwent structural fat grafting between June 2006 and September 2012 for cleft lip revision, with appropriate photographic follow-up included. Twenty-two cases were reviewed; 18 had sufficient data to be included. Interventions Patients underwent structural fat grafting for cleft lip revision, most commonly injecting fat under deficient philtral columns, the nostril base, and upper lip. Main Outcome Measures Blinded observers rated outcomes using the Asher-McDade nasolabial appearance rating scale. Patients completed questionnaires assessing their satisfaction. A paired Students t-test was used to test outcomes for significance (alpha = 0.05). Results Patients were an average of 16 years old (range 6-43); average length of follow up was 11.7 months. Overall symmetry and aesthetics were improved based on the nasal form (P = 0.006) and vermillion border (P - 0.04) when rated using the Asher-McDade scale. No complications were recorded. Patients were significantly happier with their appearance after fat grafting (P < 0.001) and were uniformly positive when questioned about the ease of the surgery and rate of recovery. Conclusions Structural fat grafting is a safe and effective way to improve symmetry and enhance facial proportions in patients with cleft lip. Given the high degree of patient satisfaction, few complications, and durable results, fat grafting offers many advantages in cleft lip revision.

Challenges of Organizing Mission Surgery in Resource Limited Environments.

AbstractInterest in global burden of disease that can be surgically treated is on the rise, and plastic surgeons, with a wide scope of practice, have the tools that make them integral in providing much of the needed surgical support in the world. Since the 1950 s, plastic surgeons have been closely involved in volunteer surgery, and it is through the success and growth of organizations such as Interplast and Operation Smile that we are able to take part in the current paradigm shift to local empowerment and self-sufficiency instead of service delivery alone. This kind of growth started with medical mission work that fostered international partnerships and that remain an important aspect of addressing the unmet surgical burden of disease. Building a mission comprised of an international team of volunteers that travels to a resource-limited environment and provides top-quality surgical care is not without challenges. The aim of this article is to discuss some of these challenges and how they might be overcome.

Should surgeons use arm restraints after cleft surgery

BackgroundMost cleft surgeons require children to wear postoperative arm restraints although the literature suggests that there is no difference in early complications. The aim of this study was to determine if the use of postoperative arm restraints was effective in preventing early postoperative complications. MethodsWe reviewed 120 consecutive primary cleft surgeries in which 1 surgeon used arm restraints in all patients and the other surgeon did not. Demographic information was obtained and complications were reviewed. We compared infection, fistula, and dehiscence between the 2 groups. ResultsIn 120 primary cleft surgeries, there was no difference in early complications in patients who were required to wear arm restraints versus those who were not (P < 0.05). DiscussionArm restraints are unnecessary and may cause distress in both patients and their families. Eliminating arm restraints from cleft care would save the health care system an estimated

Massive Wormian bone at the cranial apex: identification, correction and outcome.

234,000 annually.