Understanding the Drivers of Cost and Length of Stay in a Cohort of 21,875 Patients with Severe Burn.

Burn management has significantly advanced in the past 75 years, resulting in improved mortality rates. However, there are still over one million burn victims in the United States each year, with over 3,000 burn-related deaths annually. The impacts of individual patient, hospital, and regional demographics on length of stay (LOS) and total cost have yet to be fully explored in a large nationally representative cohort. Thus, this study aimed to examine various hospital and patient characteristics using a sample of over 20,000 patients. Inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2015 were analyzed, and only patients with an ICD-9 code for second- or third-degree burns were included. In addition, a major operating room procedure must have been indicated on the discharge summary for patients to be included in the final dataset, ensuring that only severe burns requiring complex care were analyzed. Analysis of covariance models was used to evaluate the impact of various patient, hospital, and regional variables on both LOS and cost. The study found that skin grafts and fasciotomy significantly increased the cost of hospitalization. Having burns on the face, neck, and trunk significantly increased costs for patients with second-degree burns, while burns on the trunk resulted in the longest LOS for patients with third-degree burns. Infections in the hospital and additional procedures, such as flaps and skin grafts, also led to longer stays. The study also found that the prevalence of postoperative complications, such as electrolyte imbalance, was high among patients with burn surgery.

Quality and Readability of Accessible Facial Feminization Literature: Where Can We Improve?

BACKGROUND: Facial feminization surgery (FFS) consists of multiple, complex procedures. Well-informed patients have been shown to have better outcomes and expectations. However, there is limited data evaluating FFS patient-oriented material online. This study aims to evaluate the quality and readability of FFS literature online. METHODS: Facial feminization surgery-related terms were queried in Google with location, cookies, and user account information disabled. Websites were analyzed for readability using Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch-Kincaid Reading Grade Level, suitability using the suitability assessment of materials (SAM), and quality using the DISCERN scale. Unpaired t tests and χ2 tests were used to compare the websites of community-based and academic or public institutions. RESULTS: One hundred twenty websites met inclusion criteria (71 community-based and 49 academic). The average reading grade level was 11.68 ± 1.71. The average SAM score was 53.11 ± 11.75, denoting adequate readability. Only 16.67% of websites contained visual aids to assist in explaining procedures and benefits. Overall, 68.33% of websites' DISCERN score was rated very poor or poor, whereas only 8.33% were rated as good. The following DISCERN elements had the lowest scores across all graded websites: "clear source and date of information," "details of additional source of support," "refers to areas of uncertainty," and "describes risks of each treatment." Websites published by community-based institutions were significantly better in describing how FFS works and the benefits of each procedure. Academic sites overall were less biased (4.84 vs 4.62, P = 0.03) and provided additional sources of support (2.35 vs 1.32, P = <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Online FFS patient resources should be written at a more inclusive reading level and should increase the use of pictorial aids to improve patient comprehension. Facial feminization surgery patient resources were significantly above the recommended sixth grade reading level for health literature. Academic and community-based institutions should include more information about procedural risks and limitations in surgical outcomes to ensure a broader scope of understanding.

Limited Access to Facial Feminization Geographically Despite Nationwide Expansion of Other Gender-Affirming Surgeries.

Facial feminization surgery (FFS) is an integral aspect of gender-affirming surgery (GAS) for individuals seeking to align secondary sex characteristics and gender identity. Despite the importance of FFS in treating gender dysphoria, current trends and prevalence remain unknown. We sought to examine trends in GAS and FFS and investigate the payer status of facial feminization procedures in the United States. Methods: Data was extracted from the National Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2017 by using International Classification of Diseases Ninth or Tenth diagnosis codes for gender identity disorder and procedure codes for FFS. Results: From 2008 to 2017, 3015 patients underwent GAS. The yearly number of cases increased as did the average cost of GAS, which rose from $13,657 in 2008 to $50,789 in 2017. From 2015 to 2017, when FFS data was available, 110 of 1215 (9.1%) GAS patients had FFS. Most were non-Hispanic White (66.7%) or Black (23.8%). Fifty percent of FFS cases occurred in the West, followed by the Northeast (31.8%), South (13.6%), and Midwest (4.8%) (P = 0.015). By payer the cases were, 36.4% self-pay, 31.8% Medicaid, and 27.3% private insurance (P < 0.0001). Approximately, 18% of patients undergoing male-to-female transition received FFS. Conclusions: From 2008 to 2017, GAS cases increased nationwide while the average cost of surgery rose steeply. FFS cases were primarily in the Western and Northeast United States. Despite high cost, roughly 18% of transgender women in our sample received FFS, highlighting the importance of FFS in gender transition.

An Online Calculator for Estimating Breast Implant Volume from Imaging.

Breast implant surgery remains one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Implant exchange can be complicated by unavailability of medical records or implant identification cards. Using chest imaging of 154 breast implants, an algorithm for estimating breast implant volume was generated. Based on four simple measurements and patient body mass index, a free, online calculator was created with a mean error of volume estimate of less than 1 cm3 and a SD of 44 cm3. In instances where a surgeon does not have implant records available but has chest imaging, this online tool can be used to obtain a relatively accurate estimate of implant volume.