Reprocessing capabilities of newly approved devices for use in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Single-use medical devices used in surgery can create environmental waste and increased costs. Reprocessed medical devices may reduce cost and environmental impact. This study investigated the reprocessing capabilities of newly FDA-approved devices in surgery. METHODS: Devices were identified using the publicly-available FDA Releasable 510(k) Database from 2018 to 2023 using the instrument product codes for laparoscope, general, and plastic surgery (GCJ); and electrosurgical (GEI) devices. GCJ and GEI devices were categorized based on usage, and the number of devices (total, single, and reprocessed) were extracted. Costs were obtained from public websites. RESULTS: There were 658,510(k) applications for surgical devices, representing 3.8 % (658/16723) of total applications. Reprocessing capabilities existed for 29 % of GCJ devices and 14 % of GEI devices. Among GCJ devices, 5 (56 %) laparoscopy and 16 (38 %) camera devices had reprocessing capabilities. For GEI devices, 7 (50 %) laparoscopic and 5 (50 %) cable devices had reprocessing capabilities. Only one (6 %) tissue ablation device had reprocessing capabilities. The average cost of GCJ and GEI single-use devices ($11314; $8554, respectively) was less than reprocessed counterparts ($17206; $16134, respectively). CONCLUSION: Reprocessing capabilities for newly approved surgical devices are variable and overall limited. To enhance adoption of reprocessing in surgical practice, future efforts will likely be needed to expand the reprocessing potential of new surgical devices.

Local practice variations and payer differences underlie state-wide disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about disparities in oncoplastic breast surgery delivery. METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for patients who received lumpectomy for a diagnosis of breast cancer. Oncoplastic surgery was defined as adjacent tissue transfer, complex trunk repair, reduction mammoplasty, mastopexy, flap-based reconstruction, prosthesis insertion, or unspecified breast reconstruction after lumpectomy. RESULTS: We identified 18 748 patients who underwent lumpectomy between 2016 and 2020. Among those, 3140 patients underwent immediate oncoplastic surgery and 436 patients underwent delayed oncoplastic surgery. Eighty-one percent of patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery did so in the same county as they underwent a lumpectomy. However, the relative frequency of oncoplastic surgery varied significantly among counties. In multivariable regression, public insurance status (odds ratio: 0.87, 95% confidence interval: 0.80-0.95, p = 0.002) was associated with lower odds of undergoing oncoplastic surgery, even after adjusting for macromastia, other comorbidities, and county of lumpectomy. Average payments for lumpectomy with oncoplastic surgery were more than twice as high from private insurers ($840 vs. $1942, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Disparities in the receipt of oncoplastic surgery were related to differences in local practice patterns and the type of insurance patients held. Expanding services across counties and considering billing reform may help reduce these disparities.

Geographic Disparities and Payment Variation for Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about practice patterns and payments for immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR). This study aims to evaluate trends in ILR delivery and billing practices. METHODS: We queried the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database between 2016 and 2020 for patients who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection for oncologic indications. We further identified patients who underwent lymphovenous bypass on the same date as tumor resection. We used ZIP code data to analyze the geographic distribution of ILR procedures and calculated physician payments for these procedures, adjusting for inflation. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables, which predicted receipt of ILR. RESULTS: In total, 2862 patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection over the study period. Of these, 53 patients underwent ILR. Patients who underwent ILR were younger (55.1 vs 59.3 years, P = 0.023). There were no significant differences in obesity, diabetes, or smoking history between the two groups. A greater percentage of patients who underwent ILR had radiation (83% vs 67%, P = 0.027). In multivariable regression, patients residing in a county neighboring Boston had 3.32-fold higher odds of undergoing ILR (95% confidence interval: 1.76-6.25; P < 0.001), while obesity, radiation therapy, and taxane-based chemotherapy were not significant predictors. Payments for ILR varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: In Massachusetts, patients were more likely to undergo ILR if they resided near Boston. Thus, many patients with the highest known risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema may face barriers accessing ILR. Greater awareness about referring high-risk patients to plastic surgeons is needed.

The Impact of Breast Implant Cohesivity on Rippling and Revision Procedures in 2-Stage Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Rippling remains one of the most common complications following prepectoral implant-based reconstruction (IBR). Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess how implant cohesivity, a measure of elasticity and form stability, affects the incidence of rippling in prepectoral IBR. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 2-stage prepectoral IBR performed between January 2020 and June 2022 at the Brigham and Women's Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, comparing outcomes in patients who received Allergan Natrelle least cohesive, moderately cohesive, and most cohesive silicone gel implants. Outcomes of interest were rippling and reoperation for fat grafting. Results: A total of 129 patients were identified, of whom 52 had the least cohesive implants, 24 had the moderately cohesive implants, and 53 patients had the most cohesive implants. The mean follow-up time was 463 (±220) days. A decreased incidence of rippling was seen with moderately cohesive (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, P < .05) and most cohesive (OR 0.39, P < .05) implants. Third stage reoperation for fat grafting was less frequent in patients with the most cohesive implant (OR 0.07, P < .05). In subgroup analyses, the patients with the most cohesive implant, who did not receive fat grafting at the time of initial implant placement, did not require reoperation for fat grafting (0%). Conclusions: The use of highly cohesive implants in prepectoral IBR is associated with decreased rippling and fewer reoperations for fat grafting.

The Use of Unlisted Billing Codes for Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Code Consolidation.

BACKGROUND: Private insurers have considered consolidating the billing codes presently available for microvascular breast reconstruction. There is a need to understand how these different codes are currently distributed and used to help inform how coding consolidation may impact patients and providers. METHODS: Using the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database between 2016 and 2020, patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction following mastectomy for cancer-related indications were identified. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test whether an S2068 claim was associated with insurance type and median household income by patient ZIP code. The ratio of S2068 to CPT19364 claims for privately insured patients was calculated for providers practicing in each county. Total payments for professional fees were compared between billing codes. RESULTS: There were 272 claims for S2068 and 209 claims for CPT19364. An S2068 claim was associated with age < 45 years (OR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.11-3.20, p = 0.019), more affluent ZIP codes (OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.03-1.19, p = 0.004), and private insurance (OR: 16.13, 95% CI: 7.81-33.33, p < 0.001). Median total payments from private insurers were 101% higher for S2068 than for CPT19364. In all but two counties (Worcester and Hampshire), the S-code was used more frequently than CPT19364 for their privately insured patients. CONCLUSION: Coding practices for microsurgical breast reconstruction lacked uniformity in Massachusetts, and payments differed greatly between S2068 and CPT19364. Patients from more affluent towns were more likely to have S-code claims. Coding consolidation could impact access, as the majority of providers in Massachusetts might need to adapt their practices if the S-code were discontinued.

Use of patient-reported outcome measures after breast reconstruction in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly administered in high-income countries to monitor health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients undergoing breast reconstruction. Although low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a disproportionate burden of breast cancer, little is known about the use of PROMs in LMICs. This scoping review aims to examine the use of PROMs after post-mastectomy breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched in August 2022 for English-language studies using PROMs after breast reconstruction among patients with breast cancer in LMICs. Study screening and data extraction were completed. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: The search produced 1024 unique studies, 33 of which met inclusion criteria. Most were observational (48.5%) or retrospective (33.3%) studies. Studies were conducted in only 10 LMICs, with 60.5% in China and Brazil and none in low-income countries. Most were conducted in urban settings (84.8%) and outpatient clinics (57.6%), with 63.6% incorporating breast-specific PROMs and 33.3% including breast reconstruction-specific PROMs. Less than half (45.5%) used PROMs explicitly validated for their populations of interest. Only 21.2% reported PROM response rates, ranging from 43.1 to 96.9%. Barriers and facilitators of PROM use were infrequently noted. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of PROM collection and use in providing patient-centered care, it continues to be limited in middle-income countries and is not evident in low-income countries after breast reconstruction. Further research is necessary to determine effective methods to address the challenges of PROM use in LMICs.

Preoperative Risk Factors for Lymphedema in Inflammatory Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prophylactic lymphatic bypass or LYMPHA (LYmphatic Microsurgical Preventive Healing Approach) is increasingly offered to prevent lymphedema following breast cancer treatment, which develops in up to 47% of patients. Previous studies focused on intraoperative and postoperative lymphedema risk factors, which are often unknown preoperatively when the decision to perform LYMPHA is made. This study aims to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors in the high-risk inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) population. METHODS: Retrospective review of our institution's IBC program database was conducted. The primary outcome was self-reported lymphedema development. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors, while controlling for number of lymph nodes removed during axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), number of positive lymph nodes, residual disease on pathology, and need for adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Of 356 patients with IBC, 134 (mean age: 51 years, range: 22-89 years) had complete data. All 134 patients underwent surgery and radiation. Forty-seven percent of all 356 patients (167/356) developed lymphedema. Obesity (body mass index > 30) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7, confidence interval [CI]: 1.2-6.4, p = 0.02) and non-white race (OR: 4.5, CI: 1.2-23, p = 0.04) were preoperative lymphedema risk factors. CONCLUSION: Patients with IBC are high risk for developing lymphedema due to the need for ALND, radiation, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study also identified non-white race and obesity as risk factors. Larger prospective studies should evaluate potential racial disparities in lymphedema development. Due to the high prevalence of lymphedema, LYMPHA should be considered for all patients with IBC.

Adopting a Circular Economy for Surgical Care to Address Supply Chain Shocks and Climate Change.

This Viewpoint describes a circular economy for operating room supply chain networks as a climate-oriented approach that maintains organizational viability and patient health and welfare.

In-person, Hybrid, and Virtual Grand Rounds in Plastic Surgery: Impact and Participant Perceptions.

Many plastic surgery residency programs adapted to the COVID-19 pandemic by implementing virtual grand rounds. This study aimed to assess the impact of virtual grand rounds and how attendees perceived virtual grand rounds to inform future programmatic planning. Methods: This was a quality improvement initiative involving a cross-sectional survey and retrospective review of administrative records for the 2017-2018 (in-person) and 2021-2022 (virtual) academic years for two academic plastic surgery training programs in Boston, MA. Respondents were residents, fellows, and faculty within the two multisite plastic surgery residency training programs. Results: There were 39 respondents (51% faculty, 41% residents, and 8% fellows). There was no evidence of different preferences for the format of future grand rounds (P = 0.08), with most preferring hybrid, defined as in person for speakers and others who could attend. Most respondents indicated a more accessible learning environment (86.8%) and lack of in-person interaction (82.1%) as reasons for liking and not liking virtual grand rounds, respectively. Excluding outliers, attendance in 2021-2022 was on average 7.4% points greater than that in 2017-2018 (P < 0.001), or six to seven more individuals at each session. There were significantly more out-of-state speakers in 2021-2022 (84%) as compared to 2017-2018 (28%) (P = 0.0008). Conclusions: Virtual grand rounds improved attendance and the geographic diversity of speakers. Attendees preferred a hybrid format for future grand rounds, citing advantages and disadvantages to both in-person and virtual formats.

Cost communication in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: Public perceptions in the United States.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to better understand the financial toxicity of surgery on patients. Recent data demonstrated that plastic surgeons seldom discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients. Not much is known regarding the public perceptions of out-of-pocket cost communication in reconstructive and cosmetic breast surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to adult women in the United States from November 2021 to December 2021 using Amazon Mechanical Turk. Perceptions regarding cost communication in plastic surgery were gathered. Incomplete responses were excluded. Multivariable models were used to identify predictors of responses. RESULTS: There were 512 complete responses. Respondents had a mean age of 37.4 years. The majority strongly agreed or agreed that plastic surgeons should discuss out-of-pocket costs with patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (85%), plastic surgeons should know the impact of surgery on patients' financial well-being (78%), and discussing costs was the most important aspect of the appointment (70%). Respondents who were unsure of their insurance status had lower odds of strongly agreeing or agreeing that surgeons should discuss out-of-pocket costs for autologous reconstruction (OR 0.12, CI 0.02-0.58, p = 0.01) and cosmetic breast augmentation (OR 0.14, CI 0.03-0.65, p = 0.01). Privately insured respondents had greater odds of strongly agreeing or agreeing to both, respectively (OR 2.21, CI 1.32-3.82, p < 0.01; OR 1.94, CI 1.17-3.31, p = 0.01) CONCLUSION: Many laywomen support the cost communication in plastic surgery and believe that plastic surgeons should know the impact of surgery on the patients' financial well-being, with variability among the sociodemographic groups. Plastic surgeons should strongly consider discussing costs with patients undergoing breast surgery.

Bias in Surgical Residency Evaluations: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Given widespread disparities in the surgical workforce and the advent of competency-based training models that rely on objective evaluations of resident performance, this review aims to describe the landscape of bias in the evaluation methods of residents in surgical training programs in the United States. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted within PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ERIC in May 2022, without a date restriction. Studies were screened and reviewed in duplicate by 3 reviewers. Data were described descriptively. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: English-language studies conducted in the United States that assessed bias in the evaluation of surgical residents were included. RESULTS: The search yielded 1641 studies, of which 53 met inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 26 (49.1%) were retrospective cohort studies, 25 (47.2%) were cross-sectional studies, and 2 (3.8%) were prospective cohort studies. The majority included general surgery residents (n = 30, 56.6%) and nonstandardized examination modalities (n = 38, 71.7%), such as video-based skills evaluations (n = 5, 13.2%). The most common performance metric evaluated was operative skill (n = 22, 41.5%). Overall, the majority of studies demonstrated bias (n = 38, 73.6%) and most investigated gender bias (n = 46, 86.8%). Most studies reported disadvantages for female trainees regarding standardized examinations (80.0%), self-evaluations (73.7%), and program-level evaluations (71.4%). Four studies (7.6%) assessed racial bias, of which all reported disadvantages for trainees underrepresented in surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation methods for surgery residents may be prone to bias, particularly with regard to female trainees. Research is warranted regarding other implicit and explicit biases, such as racial bias, as well as for nongeneral surgery subspecialties.

Healthcare Value in Plastic Surgery Practice.

BRIEF SUMMARY: As value-based care gains traction in response to towering healthcare expenditures and issues of healthcare inequity, hospital capacity, and labor shortages, it is important to consider how a value-based approach can be achieved in plastic surgery. Value is defined as outcomes divided by costs across entire cycles of care. Drawing on previous studies and policies, this paper identifies key opportunities in plastic surgery to move the levers of costs and outcomes to deliver higher-value care. Specifically, outcomes in plastic surgery should include conventional measures of complication rates as well as patient-reported outcome measures in order to drive quality improvement and benchmark payments. Meanwhile, cost reduction in plastic surgery can be achieved through value-based payment reform, efficient workflows, evidence-based and cost-conscious selection of medical devices, and greater use of out-patient surgical facilities. Lastly, we discuss how the diminished presence of third-party payers in aesthetic surgery exemplifies the cost-conscious and patient-centered nature of value-based plastic surgery. To lead in future health policy and care delivery reform, plastic surgeons should strive for high-value care, remain open to new ways of care delivery, and understand how plastic surgery fits into overall health care delivery.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Surgical Quality.

Delivering high-quality surgical care requires knowing how best to define and measure quality in surgery. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) enable surgeons, health care systems, and payers to understand meaningful health outcomes from the patient's perspective and can be measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). As a result, there is much interest in using PROMs in routine surgical care, to guide quality improvement and to inform reimbursement pay structures. This chapter defines PROs and PROMs, differentiates PROMs from other quality measures such as patient-reported experience measures, describes PROMs in the context of routine clinical care, and provides an overview of interpreting PROM data. This chapter also describes how PROMs may be applied to quality improvement and value-based reimbursement in surgery.

How to make PROMs work: qualitative insights from leaders at United States hospitals with successful PROMs programs.

PURPOSE: Elucidate facilitators, barriers, and key lessons learned regarding the implementation of system-wide clinical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs among United States (US) healthcare leaders. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 US healthcare leaders, including chief-level executives, data directors, PROM directors, and department chairs involved in PROM implementation across seven diverse healthcare systems from February to June 2020. Transcripts were coded, evaluated for qualitative themes, and categorized according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). RESULTS: According to US hospital leaders with experience in existing clinical PROM programs, there are facilitators and barriers to implementation success in each CFIR domain. Allowing clinicians to select PROM measures and ensuring a user-friendly data platform (intervention); adapting data collection to patient home environments (outer setting); informing clinicians of the multi-faceted use of PROM data for research, clinical care, and business (inner setting); implementing PROM education earlier into clinician training (characteristics of individuals); and establishing specialty-agnostic PROM implementation teams (process) were among key facilitators to implementation success. CONCLUSION: Leaders of geographically and clinically diverse PROM programs in the US identify common themes that facilitate successful implementation. Drivers of success depend on factors within and outside the clinical environment. These findings may serve to guide both establishing new PROM programs and refining existing PROM programs.

Misconceptions, Myths, and Mystery: A Cross-sectional Survey Study on Public Knowledge and Values of Microsurgery.

BACKGROUND: Microsurgery is a foundational plastic surgery principle. However, public unawareness of microsurgery and its associated rigorous training in the United States may contribute to current misconceptions and undervaluing of plastic and reconstructive surgeons. This study aims to characterize public knowledge of microsurgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted from August to September 2021 using Amazon Mechanical Turk to assess baseline public knowledge of microsurgery. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to evaluate the association between baseline knowledge and demographic characteristics. Significance was set to a p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 516 responses were analyzed. The mean age was 36.7 years (standard deviation, 16.04 years; white, 84%; non-Hispanic, 70%). Of those surveyed, 52% agreed that general surgeons perform microsurgery, while only 28% agreed that plastic and reconstructive surgeons perform microsurgery. When asked if head and neck reconstruction, breast reconstruction, and finger replantation required microsurgery, only 28, 41, and 41% of respondents agreed, respectively. When controlled for sociodemographic factors, Hispanics had significantly more odds to mistake that head and neck reconstruction did not require microsurgery (odds ratio [OR] 95% CI 0.49; 0.30-0.80; p = 0.004) and less odds to consider plastic and reconstructive surgeons for reconstruction (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.32-0.84; p = 0.008). Females had 1.63 more odds of considering plastic and reconstructive surgeons for reconstruction (95% CI 1.09-2.43; p = 0.017). Low-educated participants had significantly more odds to consider general surgeons as those who performed reconstructive microsurgery (OR 8.70; 95% CI 1.09-69.40; p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Misconceptions of microsurgery as a foundational principle of plastic surgery persist and correlate with undervaluing the specialty. Knowledge differs by ethnicity, level of education, and gender. Therefore, patient counseling should use culturally appropriate elements to demystify microsurgery, build value, and better inform risks and benefits.

Integration of pharmacotherapy for alcohol use disorder treatment in primary care settings: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorder (AUD) represents the most prevalent addiction in the United States. Integration of AUD treatment in primary care settings would expand care access. The objective of this scoping review is to examine models of AUD treatment in primary care that include pharmacotherapy (acamprosate, disulfiram, naltrexone). METHODS: The team undertook a search across MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science on May 21, 2021. Eligibility criteria included: patient population ≥ 18 years old, primary care-based setting, US-based study, presence of an intervention to promote AUD treatment, and prescription of FDA-approved AUD pharmacotherapy. Study design was limited to controlled trials and observational studies. We assessed study bias using a modified Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine Rating Framework quality rating scheme. RESULTS: The qualitative synthesis included forty-seven papers, representing 25 primary studies. Primary study sample sizes ranged from 24 to 830,825 participants and many (44 %) were randomized controlled trials. Most studies (80 %) included a nonpharmacologic intervention for AUD: 56 % with brief intervention, 40 % with motivational interviewing, and 12 % with motivational enhancement therapy. A plurality of studies (48 %) included mixed pharmacologic interventions, with administration of any combination of naltrexone, acamprosate, and/or disulfiram. Of the 47 total studies included, 68 % assessed care initiation and engagement. Fewer studies (15 %) explored practices surrounding screening for or diagnosing AUD. Outcome measures included receipt of pharmacotherapy and alcohol consumption, which about half of studies included (53 % and 51 %, respectively). Many of these outcomes showed significant findings in favor of integrated care models for AUD. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings may be associated with improved process and outcome measures of care. Future research should seek to understand the varied experiences across care integration models.

Is nerve coaptation associated with improved sensation after microvascular breast reconstruction? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Sensation after autologous breast reconstruction is an increasingly important outcome. Several studies demonstrated improved sensation with flap neurotization but utilized heterogenous measures and follow-up intervals. This review evaluates sensory outcomes after neurotization using uniform, objective outcome measurements. METHODS: PubMed/Medline and Embase databases were queried for articles published between January 1990 and January 2022. Inclusion criteria included studies with free flap tissue transfer breast reconstruction patients and use of Semmes-Weinstein Monofilaments (SWM) to quantify return of sensation after either neurotization or no neurotization. Reviews, case reports, and studies utilizing implants or pedicled flaps were excluded. RESULTS: Overall, 513 articles were screened. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria for a total of 474 patients. There were 254 non-neurotized patients included as controls (Group A) and 220 neurotized patients (Group B). Mean follow-up time was similar in both groups (22.06 months vs. 22.78 months, p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in age (Group A = 49.97 years vs. Group B = 42.47 years) or BMI (Group A = 25.48 vs. Group B = 25.97) between groups. More patients in group B received radiation therapy (Group B = 32.72% vs. Group A = 20.86%, p > 0.05). Patients that received neurotization had lower mean pressure thresholds (Group A = 38.85 gm/mm2 vs. Group B = 6.69 gm/mm2 , p = 0.053) than comorbidity-matched controls. CONCLUSION: Neurotization has been shown to be a safe and feasible option for enhancing return of sensation after breast reconstruction. Future studies with standardized, long-term follow-up will further elucidate the pattern of breast sensation return and the impact of neurotization.

A Narrative Review of Plastic Surgery and Climate Change: Context and Considerations.

Climate change poses significant threats to human health and society. Although healthcare will bear a large burden of the downstream effects of climate change, the healthcare industry is simultaneously a major contributor to climate change. Within hospitals, surgery is one of the most energy-intensive practices. There is a growing body of literature describing ways to mitigate and adapt to climate change in surgery. However, there is a need to better understand the unique implications for each surgical subspecialty. This review contextualizes plastic and reconstructive surgery within the climate change discussion. In particular, this review highlights the specific ways in which plastic surgery may affect climate change and how climate change may affect plastic surgery. In light of growing public demand for change and greater alignment between industries and nations with regard to climate change solutions, we also offer a conceptual framework to guide further work in this burgeoning field of research.

Public Perceptions of Breast Implant Complications and the FDA Boxed Warning on Implants.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning on breast implants in October 2021, requiring communication of certain risks to patients. This study assessed how this boxed warning may impact public perceptions of breast implants. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to adult women in the United States in December 2021 using Amazon Mechanical Turk to assess perceptions of breast implant risks communicated in the FDA-issued guidance. Sociodemographic predictors of responses were identified using multivariable models. Results: There were 494 complete responses. Respondents had a mean age of 36.9 years, and 80% had an associate's degree or higher. At baseline, most would consider receiving implants for reconstructive or cosmetic purposes (65%). Some were unsure or indicated that it is not possible to undergo mammograms after receiving implants (42%). After provided information in the FDA guidance, the majority strongly agreed or agreed that they were less likely to receive implants knowing the risk of anaplastic large cell lymphoma (75%), because implants contain chemicals/heavy metals (74%), and because implants are not lifetime devices (68%), with greater odds among Hispanic respondents (OR, 2.35; P < 0.01) and lower odds among higher-income respondents (OR, 0.64; P = 0.03). Conclusions: There are misconceptions with regard to breast implant-associated risks. Despite most laywomen indicating that they would consider receiving implants at baseline, the risks communicated in the 2021 FDA boxed warning may make patients less likely to receive implants, with variability among different sociodemographic populations.

Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

Healthcare has a major impact on climate change, and surgery is among the most energy-intensive hospital practices. Although most Americans believe climate change is happening, little is known regarding public awareness of the impact of healthcare on climate change and how this may impact perceptions of plastic surgery. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to adults in the United States using Amazon Mechanical Turk in December 2021 to assess public perceptions of climate change, healthcare, and plastic surgery. Incomplete responses were excluded from analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of responses. Results: There were 890 complete responses. Most participants strongly agreed or agreed that climate change is happening (89%). Fewer believed that healthcare has an impact on climate change (62%), with greater odds among respondents with an associate's degree or higher (odds ratio 2.8, P < 0.001). After they were given information about the impact of healthcare on climate change, most respondents were more worried about the effects of cosmetic plastic surgery (64%). Many respondents would be willing to engage in personal climate change mitigation measures if undergoing surgery and pay higher professional fees to support sustainable hospital practices. Conclusions: Most Americans believe climate change is happening, but fewer believe healthcare has an impact on climate change. Knowledge regarding the impact of healthcare and surgery on climate change may make patients more worried about the effects of plastic surgery on climate change, but patients may be willing to personally mitigate climate impacts of surgery.