Defining Preferred Esthetics of the Ideal Phallus via Crowdsource Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To describe phalloplasty subunits and determine the preferred crowdsourced esthetics. Esthetic ideals are often used to guide reconstruction, and there has been an increase in the number of gender-affirming surgeries and reconstructive phalloplasties performed. However, there is a paucity of literature describing ideal phalloplasty esthetics. METHODS: Phallus esthetic subunits were defined, and a split testing-based survey was used. Subjects were solicited via Craigslist, Amazon Mechanical Turk, and Reddit and distributed among health care co-workers. Computer-generated images with variable ratios of glans, corona, and shaft were provided and respondents were asked to select the most esthetically pleasing photo. Demographic information was gathered. Univariate and multivariate regression were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1029 people responded to the survey request and 909 people (88.3%) completed the entire survey. There were 440 respondents who self-identified as male, 334 female, 92 transgender male, and 25 transgender female. The health care field was the profession for 55.4%. Health care providers had 65.3% higher odds of preferring the longer shaft length-to-width ratio, 30.3% less odds of preferring a bilateral taper of the glans, and 48.4% less odds of preferring an angulated shaft compared to non-health care providers (P = .006, P = .021, P <.001, respectively). When compared to males, transgender females were more than 13 times likely to prefer an angulated glans corona junction (P = .008). CONCLUSION: The ideal phallic esthetic varies by individual, and there were statistically significant preferences across age, education, health care status, gender, and sexual orientation. This study can serve as a guide on phalloplasties for patients and gender-affirming surgeons.

Management of Dog Bite Injuries: Procedural Sedation, Infection, and Operative Indications at a Single-Institution Level I Pediatric Trauma Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Dog bite injuries are common within the pediatric population. Currently, there are inconclusive data on best sedation practice, antibiotic regimen, and need for plastic surgery referrals for treatment of dog bite injuries in the emergency department (ED) versus operating room (OR). This study set out to determine sedation practice, infection management, and necessity for plastic surgery referral at a level I pediatric trauma center. METHODS: A retrospective review of all pediatric (0-18 years old) dog bites documented in electronic medical records from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, was performed. Bitten by dog encounters were identified by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision codes E906.0 and W54.0, W54.0XXA, and W54, respectively. Data gathered included age, gender, month of injury, circumstance of injury, injury characteristics, location of repair, person performing repair, sedation (if used, then length of sedation), inpatient admission, antibiotics prescribed, dog characteristics (breed, size, sex, age, relationship to patient), and complications. Summary statistics were calculated as mean ± SD. Comparisons for nominal variables were performed using the χ2 test. All analyses were performed using Stata v.16. 1. RESULTS: A total of 1438 pediatric patients were included in this study over a 10-year period. Of injuries requiring repair (n = 846), most repairs were performed in the ED (97.1% [822/846]), whereas 24 (2.8%) required repair in the OR. Of the bites that required repair (n = 846), 81.1% (686/846) were performed by an emergency medicine physician and 147 (17.4%) by plastic surgeons. Procedural sedation in the ED was performed in 146 repairs (17.3%). Documented sedation time ranged from 10 to 96 minutes. Most patients received a prescription for antibiotics (80.5%), usually amoxicillin/clavulanate (90.8%). Infection was the most common sequela (9.5%). There was no significant difference in infection rates between repairs performed in the ED versus those in the OR. CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that pediatric patient dog bite injuries can be successfully managed in an ED. Procedural sedation has demonstrated no increased safety risks compared with the OR. Rates of infection are also not demonstrated to be significantly higher in repairs done in the ED versus those taken to operating theater.

Pediatric Procedural Sedation in the Emergency Setting.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric emergency department (ED) visits are common. Many are due to injury, which require procedural treatments with sedation. There are many well researched independent predictors of adverse events for pediatric procedural sedation. The duration of sedation as a predictor of adverse events has not been well studied. This study aims to determine the complication rate and severity of procedural sedation as well as determine if the duration of sedation is correlated with an increased risk of complications. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board approval, a retrospective study was performed on all patients seen at Helen Devos Children's ED who received sedation from August 1, 2011, to August 15, 2016. Study variables included age, weight, type of procedure, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) physical status class, Mallampati score, comorbidities, sedation medication, sedation time, and complication. A logistic regression was performed assessing risk factors for complications. Statistical significance was assessed at P < 0.05. RESULTS: There were 1,814 patients included in the study. Median sedation time was 20 minutes. There were 70 (3.9%) total complications. Controlling for age, weight, comorbidities, ASA class, Mallampati score, and total sedation medication, sedation time was a significant predictor of a complication (odds ratio: 1.021; 95% CI, 1.004-1.039). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients can safely undergo procedural sedation in the ED. This study demonstrates a high safety profile for long procedural sedations with slight increases in risk as sedation time increases. There is no identifiable time where the duration of sedation significantly increases the risk of complication.

Diazepam Premedication in Primary Augmentation Mammoplasty.

Goals/Purpose: To evaluate the effects of preoperative oral diazepam on the postoperative course of patients undergoing primary augmentation mammoplasty in an outpatient surgical center. Methods/Technique: A retrospective review was conducted of 189 patients undergoing primary breast augmentation at an outpatient surgical center from 2012 to 2015. Patients receiving same-day premedication with oral diazepam were compared with a control group without premedication. Patients with combined surgical procedures were excluded with the exception of minor, superficial procedures. Patient demographics, perioperative medication use, operative details, and postoperative numeric pain scale (0-10) scores were collected. Results/Complications: Ninety-three patients (49%) were included in the premedication group and 96 (51%) in the control group. Difference in age, body mass index, implant size, and intraoperative opioid use were not statistically significantly different between the treatment and control groups (P > .05). No difference was noted in postoperative nausea, emesis, or antiemetic use between the 2 groups. The operative time was slightly longer in the control group (64.5 minutes vs 58.5 minutes, P = .006). Immediate postoperative pain (3.6 vs 4.4) and time to discharge (101 minutes vs 110 minutes) were slightly decreased in the premedication group; however, these values did not reach statistical significance. Intraoperative narcotic use was the same between groups, but postoperative narcotic pain medication use was higher in the premedication group (9.68 mg vs 8.26 mg, P = .036). Predischarge pain scores (2.87 vs 2.29, P = .006) were also noted to be slightly higher in the premedication group. Conclusions: Preoperative diazepam administration does not significantly decrease time to discharge in primary breast augmentation mammoplasty. Furthermore, its use may result in increased postoperative narcotic use and higher pain scores at the time of discharge.

Tourniquet Use in Wide-Awake Carpal Tunnel Release.

Background: Carpal tunnel syndrome is a common cause of upper extremity discomfort. Surgical release of the median nerve can be performed under general or local anesthetic, with or without a tourniquet. Wide-awake carpal tunnel release (CTR) (local anesthesia, no sedation) is gaining popularity. Tourniquet discomfort is a reported downside. This study reviews outcomes in wide-awake CTR and compares tourniquet versus no tourniquet use. Methods: Wide-awake, open CTRs performed from February 2013 to April 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts: with and without tourniquet. Demographics, comorbidities, tobacco use, operative time, estimated blood loss, complications and outcomes were compared. Results: A total of 304 CTRs were performed on 246 patients. The majority of patients were male (88.5%), and the mean age was 59.9 years. One hundred patients (32.9%) were diabetic, and 92 patients (30.2%) were taking antithrombotics. Seventy-five patients (24.7%) were smokers. A forearm tourniquet was used for 90 CTRs (29.6%). Mean operative time was 24.97 minutes with a tourniquet and 21.69 minutes without. Estimated blood loss was 3.16 mL with a tourniquet and 4.25 mL without. All other analyzed outcomes were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Operative time was statistically longer and estimated blood loss was statistically less with tourniquet use, but these findings are not clinically significant. This suggests that local anesthetic with epinephrine is a safe and effective alternative to tourniquet use in CTR. The overall rate of complications was low, and there were no major differences in postoperative outcomes between groups.

Advances in addressing full-thickness skin defects: a review of dermal and epidermal substitutes.

full-thickness skin defects remain a reconstructive challenge. Novel regenerative modalities can aid in addressing these defects. A literature review of currently available dermal and epidermal regenerates was performed. The mechanism and application for each skin substitute was analyzed to provide a guide for these modalities. Available epidermal substitutes include autografts and allografts and may be cultured or noncultured. Dermal regenerate templates exist in biologic and synthetic varieties that differ in the source animal and processing. Epidermal and dermal skin substitutes are promising adjunctive tools for addressing certain soft tissue defects and have improved outcomes in reconstructive procedures. The following article provides a comprehensive review of the biologic materials available and the types of complex wounds amenable to their use.

Training techniques in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy: a systematic review.

The learning curve to achieve competency in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) is poorly outlined. Online databases were searched for training in LDN. Abstracts and manuscripts were excluded if they did not address introduction of a laparoscopic technique for donor nephrectomy. Relevant manuscripts were reviewed for surgical technique, use of animal models, co-surgeons, surgeon specialty and training, institution type/volume, and assessment of training method. Forty-four met inclusion criteria, with 75% describing the evolution from open to LDN. Eighty-two percent were from academic centers, and 36% were from centers performing <25 donor nephrectomies each year. The learner was an attending surgeon 80% of the time, mostly urologists with prior laparoscopy or open nephrectomy experience. The learning curve, defined by decreased operating time, averaged 35 cases. Improved intra-operative, patient, and recipient outcomes were observed for centers performing ≥50 LDNs annually. The United Network of Organ Sharing requires 15 cases as surgeon or assistant to be certified as the primary LDN surgeon. This falls below the described learning curve for LDN. The assessment of training and competency for LDN is heterogeneous, and objective learner-based metrics could help surgeons and institutions reach a quality standard for performing this operation.