The Use of Autologous and Cadaveric Grafts in Rhinoplasty: A Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Both autologous and cadaveric grafts are often used during rhinoplasty to create volume and provide support. Despite discussion in the literature comparing the efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and complication rates between grafting options, it remains unclear which is the superior choice when considering availability, donor site morbidity, and cost. There is a little description of the current use of these materials amongst facial plastic surgeons. METHODS: A 12 question survey was created, and IRB approval was obtained. The survey was distributed to practicing members of the AAFPRS via their membership listserv. RESULTS: 178 respondents completed the survey for an overall response rate of 17.5%. The most common rhinoplasty graft types used by respondents were autologous septal cartilage (96.6%), autologous auricular grafts (93.8%), autologous rib graft (ARG) (75.8%), and cadaveric rib graft (CRG) (56.7%). Patient comorbidities and performing more than 50 rhinoplasties per year were positively correlated with use of CRG grafts and concerns about complications and cost were negatively correlated. CONCLUSIONS: While autologous septal and auricular cartilage remain the most common graft choices amongst surveyed facial plastic surgeons, a majority utilize cadaveric rib grafts in their practice. Patient comorbidities, surgery volume, concerns about graft complications, and cost were the chief factors associated with use of cadaveric grafts amongst survey respondents. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Efficacy of 24 hours versus 5 days of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of surgical site infection in outpatient elective facial plastic surgery.

Background: The discovery of penicillin marked a paradigm shift in medicine with the ability to treat previously life-threatening infections. Increasing antibiotic resistance as well as the risk of adverse reactions to antibiotics, however, creates pressures for judicious use. There continues to be debate about the role of prophylactic antibiotics in facial plastic surgery. This study explores the role of prophylactic antibiotic administration in elective outpatient facial plastic surgery by comparing 5 days versus 24 hours of antibiotic prophylaxis. Method: A retrospective cohort study of all consecutive patients undergoing cosmetic procedures at an outpatient facial plastic surgical center who received either 5 days or 24 hours of prophylactic antibiotics was performed. The primary outcome was the need for postoperative antibiotics within 6 weeks of surgery. Results: 204 patients met the inclusion criteria: 104 in the 5-day group and 100 in the 24-hour prophylaxis group. The overall infection rate was 3.4%: 3% in the 24-hour group and 3.8% in the 5-day group (p = 0.77). Subgroup analysis of clean-contaminated cases (n = 85) showed the rate of postoperative infections was 4.3%, all within the 5-day group. In clean cases (n = 119), the rate of postoperative infections was 4.2% (n = 5): 4.8% (n = 3) in the 24-hour group versus 3.5% (n = 2) in the 5-day group. Conclusions: The results show that decreasing the duration of antibiotics was not associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection. Given that antibiotics are an increasingly precious commodity with rising rates of resistance, this study supports the use of decreasing postoperative antibiotics to 24 hours.