Free perforator flaps vs propeller flaps in lower limb reconstruction: A cost/effectiveness analysis on a series of 179 cases.

PURPOSE: The aim of this report is to compare free perforator flaps and propeller flaps in the coverage of lower limb soft tissue defects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 179 patients (age between 5 and 92 years old), underwent soft tissue reconstruction of the lower limb between January 2009 and January 2015, either by free flap or propeller flap. The two groups were retrospectively evaluated in order to assess the outcome, complications and potential risk factors. Correlations between risk factors and presence/absence of failure or complications have been evaluated with descriptive statistical analysis and a set of logistic regression models. Finally, an economic analysis was conducted to evaluate the different tecniques. RESULTS: In a simple descriptive statistical analysis, the overall failure rate is 6% for free flaps and 3.7% for propeller flaps; the complication rates are 14% vs 21.5% and it increases as dimension increases. The logistic models relating failure and complications with potential risk factors do not show significant differences, whereas the economic analysis show that the average expense of free flaps is 5077.5€ per patient, 1595.6€ per patient for propeller flaps. CONCLUSIONS: Our results do not demonstrate significant differences between the two groups about correlation of risk factors or flap size with complication or failure. The surgical option choice should be taken only after accurate evaluation of the soft tissue surrounding the defect. Propeller flaps should be preferred in case of small/medium size defects in otherwise healthy extremities. Free perforator flaps should be the choice in large defects due to trauma or vascular diseases. The economic analysis suggests that propeller flap should be considered when possible.

Face Treatment Using Nonsurgical Mini-Invasive Techniques as Postsurgical Procedure for Traumatic Injury.

BACKGROUND: Facial trauma can cause major psychological damage and compromise a patient's quality of life. Unfortunately, surgery cannot always solve this problem or provide an acceptable result. OBJECTIVES: Treatment with injectables may provide a solution that is minimally invasive and better accepted by patients as a means to improve poor outcomes after facial trauma. METHODS: This retrospective study involved 50 patients (29 men, 21 women) who underwent primary surgery to treat facial trauma between January 2015 and January 2017. Based on the facial area affected by poor outcomes (upper face, midface, and lower face), patients underwent ≥1 aesthetic medicine treatments with hyaluronic acid dermal fillers and botulinum toxin injections. To evaluate patient satisfaction and the effect of the treatment on quality of life, patients were asked to complete 2 questionnaires, POSAS and FACE-Q, prior to treatment and 90 days after the last treatment session. RESULTS: Questionnaire scores indicated improvements in aesthetic and psychological metrics, perceived both by the patient and the observer. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive aesthetic treatments represent a valuable adjunct to surgical procedures for improving facial aesthetics after injury and consequently the quality of life of patients affected by facial trauma.

Injectable profiloplasty: Forehead, nose, lips, and chin filler treatment.

INTRODUCTION: We propose a medical filler treatment algorithm of the profile which includes forehead, nose, and chin and to evaluate profilometric results and complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 83 case reviews of associated liquid forehead, nose, and chin plasty performed consecutively from 2014 to 2016. We monitored the horizontal and vertical sagittal stability into two age group: <40 y.o. and >40 y.o. using profilometric Arnett analysis measurements on the F, Gb, Na, Nd, Nt, Sn, ULA, LLA, B, Pg, and Gn soft-tissue points. RESULTS: The results at both 3 and 6 months were consistent with the normal ranges indicated by Arnett, with a 0.8 mm maximum of defect/excess. Forehead treatment was performed in 51 (61.4%) patient. Patients >40 y.o. always needed a global correction of the forehead profile. We performed nasal treatment in 83 (100%) patient, acute nasolabial angles was the more frequent nasal defect. The lips were injected in 59 patients (71.1) more frequently >40 y.o. In 83 (100%) patients we perform a chin augmentation. The average advancement of the chin was 3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The correction of the projection of the forehead, of the profile and shape of the nose, of the lips and chin as well as an overall improvement in face aesthetics and harmony gives a good solution in patients avoiding the need for a surgical intervention, scars and cost of general anesthesia, thus providing the optimum in patient satisfaction.