Does Side Matter? The Impact of Free Flap Harvest Laterality on Ambulatory Function in Lower Extremity Traumatic Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Free flaps are essential for limb salvage in patients with lower extremity (LE) trauma; however, significant donor-site morbidity could impact functional outcomes. This study compares postoperative ambulatory function between contralateral and ipsilateral free flap harvest in LE traumatic reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent LE reconstruction at a level 1 trauma center from 2009 to 2022. Flap characteristics, injury history, and ambulatory function were collected. Flap harvest laterality was determined in relation to the injured leg. The flaps were categorized as either fasciocutaneous or those that included a muscle component (muscle/myocutaneous). Chi-squared and Mann-Whitney tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Upon review, 173 LE free flaps were performed, of which 70 (65.4%) were harvested from the ipsilateral leg and 37 (34.6%) were from the contralateral leg. Among all LE free flaps, the limb salvage rate was 97.2%, and the flap survival rate was 94.4%. Full ambulation was achieved in 37 (52.9%) patients in the ipsilateral cohort and 18 (48.6%) in the contralateral cohort (p = 0.679). The average time to full ambulation did not vary between these cohorts (p = 0.071). However, upon subanalysis of the 61 muscle/myocutaneous flaps, the ipsilateral cohort had prolonged time to full ambulation (6.4 months, interquartile range [IQR]: 4.8-13.5) compared with the contralateral one (2.3 months, IQR: 2.3 [1.0-3.9]) p = 0.007. There was no significant difference in time to full ambulation between flap harvest laterality cohorts among the fasciocutaneous flaps (p = 0.733). CONCLUSION: Among free flaps harvested from the ipsilateral leg, fasciocutaneous flaps were associated with faster recovery to full ambulation relative to muscle/myocutaneous flaps. Since harvesting muscle or myocutaneous flaps from the ipsilateral leg may be associated with a slower recovery of ambulation, surgeons may consider harvesting from a donor site on the contralateral leg if reconstruction requires a muscle component.

A systematic review of surgical simulation in gender affirmation surgery.

The burgeoning field of gender affirmation surgery (GAS) has become increasingly complex, challenging plastic surgeons to meet high standards for their patients. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the emphasis on remote learning ushered in the increased use of surgical simulation training, offering residents the opportunity to trial challenging procedures before treating patients. This systematic review seeks to summarize current simulation training models used in GAS. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA-P guidelines using the following databases: PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Inclusion criteria were English-language peer-reviewed articles on surgical simulation techniques or training related to the field of gender surgery. Skills and techniques taught and assessed, model type, equipment, and cost were abstracted from articles. Our search criteria identified 1650 articles, 10 of which met the inclusion criteria for data extraction. Simulation models included those that involved cadavers (n = 2), synthetic benchtop (n = 5), augmented/virtual reality (n = 2), and 3D-printed interfaces (n = 1). The most common procedure involved breast or pectoral reconstruction and/or augmentation (n = 5), followed by vaginal reconstruction (n = 3). One simulation model involved facial GAS. All models focused on surgical technique and anatomy, three on suture skills or knot-tying, and one on surgical decision-making. The evolving field of GAS requires that plastic surgery trainees be knowledgeable on surgical techniques surrounding this scope of practice. Surgical simulation not only teaches residents how to master techniques but also helps address the sensitive nature of GAS.

Immediate and Long-term Outcomes of Lateral Retroperitoneal Pressure Regulating Balloon Placement During Artificial Urinary Sphincter Implantation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe immediate and long-term outcomes of pressure regulating balloon (PRB) placement, exchange, and extraction from the lateral retroperitoneum (LR) in male patients receiving an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients that underwent primary AUS placement between 2006 and 2021. All patients had the PRB placed in the LR during the study period. Intraoperative complications during PRB placement, exchange, or removal, and indications for PRB revision, such as infection, erosion, or mechanical failures were analyzed. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-one patients were included in the study. All patients underwent primary implantation with no intraoperative complications including no incidents of bowel or vascular injury during PRB placement. In addition, there were no instances of intraoperative injury during PRB removal (with or without PRB replacement). After mean follow-up of 54.8months (range: 1-181months), 9 patients (1.7%) developed a reservoir-specific complication with infection (5 patients, 0.9%) being the most common issue found. The second most common type or reservoir issue was a palpable or herniated reservoir. There were 2 patients (0.4%) who herniated their reservoirs and one patient with a nonbothersome, but palpable reservoir. Lastly, there were 2 incidents (0.4%) of mechanical failure caused by a leak in the PRB. CONCLUSION: Due to the ease and safety of placing and removing PRBs from this location and exceedingly low rates of PRB-related complications in long-term follow-up, the LR should be considered as an ideal location for PRB placement in male patients receiving an AUS.

The 51-60 cm H2O Artificial Urinary Sphincter Pressure Regulating Balloon: Indications and Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the role and long-term outcomes of using the 51-60cm H2O pressure regulating balloon (PRB) in male patients with an artificial urinary sphincter (AUS). METHODS: From 2005-2021, 90 patients with a variety of urethral risk factors underwent AUS placement with use of the low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB to treat stress incontinence. Patient demographics, indication for use of the 51-60 cm H2O PRB, perioperative data, and postoperative outcomes were examined and Pearson's chi squared test and Wilcoxon rank sum test were used to identify associations with future revisions, erosion, and mechanical failure. RESULTS: Ninety patients were included in the study. After median follow-up of 46.6months (range: 6-146months), 4 (4.44%) patients developed an erosion-related complication that required device removal, 4 developed an infection, and 3 underwent surgery for pump relocation. One patient had a reported mechanical failure of unknown source. Thirty patients underwent revision surgery to reduce incontinence. Of the 4 patients with erosion, 1 was due to iatrogenic catheterization. The remaining 3 had numerous urethral risk factors. Univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of cuff erosion, infection, and revision in patients with a 51-60 cm H2O PRB. No significant associations were found including prior pelvic radiation, age at AUS placement, presence of inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP), prior AUS erosion, or previous urethroplasty. CONCLUSION: The low-pressure 51-60 cm H2O PRB can be used in high-risk male patients with urinary incontinence with low rates of complications including erosion, infection, and mechanical failure. While patients may choose to undergo future revisional surgery to improve continence, the 51-60 cm H2O PRB should be considered as the initial PRB in patients with urethral risk factors.

Suprapubic Lipectomy and Placement of a Three-piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis.

BACKGROUND: Penile length loss is often observed in patients with erectile dysfunction and obesity. In patients with a prominent infrapubic fat pad, the excess fat can further reduce perceived penile length.1 As others have reported, concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and placement of a penile implant has been shown to be an effective way of exposing phallic length in this challenging patient population.2,3 OBJECTIVE: In this video, we present surgical technique and initial outcomes of concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) placement in patients that have erectile dysfunction and lipodystrophy of the mons pubis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed an institutional review board-approved prosthetic database of male patients that underwent placement of a 3-piece IPP and concurrent suprapubic lipectomy from 2020 to 2023. Intraoperative complications and postoperative outcomes were collated and analyzed. To perform this operation, an elliptical incision is made around the suprapubic fat pad that extends to the base of the penis inferiorly. Laterally the incision is carried just medial to the inferior margin of the iliac crest. Sharp dissection and electrocautery are used to dissect the fat pad free. A layer of areolar tissue is preserved above the layer of the fascia to prevent seroma formation. For larger blood vessels, vascular clips are used to ensure adequate hemostasis. After removal of the fat pad, placement of the penile prosthesis can proceed as one would through an infrapubic approach. After the device is placed, the tissue flaps based on the external pudendal vessels are inspected for adequate vascularity. Penetrating towel clamps are used to approximate the skin edges from lateral to medial so that the midline closure can be approximated accurately. 0-PDS is used to anchor the flap superiorly into the lower edge of the abdominal fold. The incision is then closed in multiple layers of absorbable suture from lateral to medial. A skin stapler or suture is then used to approximate the skin and the penis is wrapped with a compressive dressing. RESULTS: Nine patients underwent the combined surgery. There were no intraoperative complications. In follow-up, 1 patient developed an infection-related complication that required device removal and immediate replacement. The remaining 8 did well postoperatively with improved dorsal phallic length with no infection or device-related complications. CONCLUSION: Concurrent suprapubic lipectomy and placement of a 3-piece IPP is a safe and reproducible technique for the treatment of suprapubic lipodystrophy, buried penis, and refractory ED.