Time-to-operation delays and in-hospital complications in operative facial trauma: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of facial fractures is variable. Understanding how time to operative management impacts outcomes can help standardize practice. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the ACS Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database between 2016 and 2019. Adult patients with operative facial fractures were isolated by ICD-10 procedure codes, and further stratified by fracture location, including the mandible, orbit, maxilla, zygoma, and frontal bone. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to predict in-hospital complications (both surgical and systemic complications) adjusting for time-to-operation, comorbidities, fracture location, AIS, and demographics. RESULTS: 1678 patients with operative facial fractures were identified. The median time-to-operation was 2 days (IQR 1.0-2.0 days). Most patients only had one operative fracture (95 %) and orbital fracture was the most common (44 %). The overall complication rate was higher for those operated after 2 days compared to those operated between 1 and 2 days and within 24 h (2.8 % vs 0.6 % vs 0.7 %; p < 0.001). Patients who were operated on after 48 h exhibited an increased risk of any complication (OR 4.72, 95 % CI 1.49-16.6, p = 0.010) on multivariable models. CONCLUSION: Delays in the management of facial fractures are associated with more in-hospital complications. However, the incidence of short-term postoperative complications remains low. Injury characteristics are the primary predictor of delays in operation, however Hispanic patients independently experienced delays in care.

Evaluation of Rhinoplasty Information from ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude for Readability and Accuracy.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the readability, accuracy, quality, and completeness of ChatGPT (Open AI, San Francisco, CA), Gemini (Google, Mountain View, CA), and Claude (Anthropic, San Francisco, CA) responses to common questions about rhinoplasty. METHODS: Ten questions commonly encountered in the senior author's (SPM) rhinoplasty practice were presented to ChatGPT-4, Gemini and Claude. Seven Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons with experience in rhinoplasty were asked to evaluate these responses for accuracy, quality, completeness, relevance, and use of medical jargon on a Likert scale. The responses were also evaluated using several readability indices. RESULTS: ChatGPT achieved significantly higher evaluator scores for accuracy, and overall quality but scored significantly lower on completeness compared to Gemini and Claude. All three chatbot responses to the ten questions were rated as neutral to incomplete. All three chatbots were found to use medical jargon and scored at a college reading level for readability scores. CONCLUSIONS: Rhinoplasty surgeons should be aware that the medical information found on chatbot platforms is incomplete and still needs to be scrutinized for accuracy. However, the technology does have potential for use in healthcare education by training it on evidence-based recommendations and improving readability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Open Preservation Rhinoplasty.

Preservation of native nasal structures in rhinoplasty has aesthetic and functional benefits. This ideology can be implemented within open surgical approaches and in the context of structural modifications of the nose, particularly the nasal tip (structural preservation). In addition, modifications of preservation techniques and hybrid approaches to the osseocartilaginous vault have resulted in expanded indications for preservation of the nasal dorsum. These modifications and indications, as well as septal management in preservation cases, are discussed here in the context of an open approach. Importantly, patient-reported measures suggest that both preservation and structural approaches can yield excellent outcomes. An understanding and integration of both techniques offer great versatility for the rhinoplasty surgeon.

State of the Evidence for Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.

Preservation rhinoplasty encompasses a number of techniques that minimize disruption of the native cartilaginous and soft tissue nasal architecture. These techniques have gained popularity resulting in an increase in publications relevant to preservation rhinoplasty. However, many studies that present patient outcomes are of low-level evidence and do not incorporate validated patient-reported outcome measures. While these studies do consistently report positive outcomes, there are few high-level comparative studies that support the theoretical benefits of preservation relative to structural rhinoplasty. As contemporary preservation rhinoplasty techniques will continue to evolve and become incorporated into clinical practice, there will be the need for parallel emphasis on robust clinical studies to delineate the value of these methods.

State of the Evidence for Facial Skin Cancer Reconstruction.

This review provides a comprehensive presentation of the evidence available in facial reconstruction post-Mohs micrographic surgery. Given the large diversity in post-Mohs reconstruction, there are limited guidelines in the management of defects. The aim of the present work is to provide a review of the best evidence as it pertains to several considerations in facial reconstruction. Data suggests that Mohs micrographic surgery and many reconstructive procedures can be performed as outpatient procedures under local anesthesia, with narcotic pain medication only given in certain patient populations following a minority of reconstructive procedures. Perioperative and topical antibiotics are generally not indicated. Aspirin and warfarin can generally be continued for most reconstructive procedures, but clopidogrel and novel anticoagulants may predispose to increased bleeding complications. Delayed reconstruction appears to be safe, although data are discordant on this topic. No specific wound closure technique or suture choice appears to be consistently superior. Given the lack of robust comparative studies, consistent methodology, and variable defect sizes/locations, no robust evidence-based guidelines can be generated for reconstruction techniques of facial subsites.

Matched Cohort Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Hump Resection Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Structural preservation techniques (SPR) minimize disruption of the dorsal aesthetic lines, with potential aesthetic and functional benefits over conventional hump resection techniques (CHR). The goal of this study is to compare patient reported outcomes between these techniques. METHODS: This study was a retrospective matched cohort analysis of patients undergoing rhinoplasty with dorsal hump reduction using patient-reported outcomes measures: Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (obstructive: SCHNOS-O, cosmetic: SCHNOS-C) and visual analog scale (functional: VAS-F, cosmetic: VAS-C). A cohort of patients undergoing SPR were matched to a cohort undergoing CHR based on age, gender, and preoperative SCHNOS scores. Intraoperative techniques and patient-reported outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the dorsal height between groups. While radix grafting was more common in SPR, dorsal onlay grafting and midvault reconstructive techniques (e.g. autospreader flaps) were more common in CHR. Within both groups, post-operative SCHNOS and VAS improved significantly at short- and long-term follow-up. There were no differences between SCHNOS or VAS scores preoperatively. Post-operative SCHNOS-O and SCHNOS-C scores were similar between groups at both short-term and long-term follow-up. Post-operative VAS-F scores were not different; however, VAS-C scores at short-term follow-up were statistically greater in the SPR group compared to the CHR group (8.92 vs 8.20, p = 0.03). At long-term follow-up, the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: While there are theoretical functional and aesthetic benefits of SPR techniques, the patient reported benefits may be minimal when compared to CHR techniques with appropriate midvault reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The Safety and Efficacy of Spreader Grafts and Autospreaders in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence of surgical outcomes and complications of spreader grafts and autospreader flaps in the context of middle vault reconstruction after dorsal hump removal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cinahl, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for Clinical and observational studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals with abstracts available that reported rhinoplasty employing either spreader graft or autospreader flap techniques and were published prior to March, 2021. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 1129 relevant studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Thirty-four studies (65.4%) were related to spreader graft (SG), 10 (21.1%) studies of autospreader flap (AF) alone and 8 (13.5%) studies involving both grafts. Meta-analysis was performed on 17 studies reporting change in NOSE scores, with pooled effect of - 23.9 (95% CI, - 26.7 to - 21.1) points. High heterogeneity with I2 = 99%. Summary data showed no differences between groups, AF group versus no graft (p = 0.7578), AF versus SF group (p = 0.9948), and SG group versus no graft (p = 0.6608). CONCLUSION: Based on available data, change in NOSE scores after rhinoplasty was similar in procedures that used spreader graft only or autospreader flap only. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Preservation Rhinoplasty: Evolution and Current State of Practice in the United States.

Classic Joseph hump reduction techniques have been a hallmark of current rhinoplasty practice and teaching. Recently, there has been a renewed global interest in preservation rhinoplasty techniques, although these techniques are not new. The work and techniques of innovative surgeons including Goodale, Lothrop, and Cottle describing preservation concepts from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century were not as prevalently adopted as open structural approaches. As such, there has been a relative paucity in both research and teaching of preservation techniques-particularly in the United States. A survey of members of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society (145 respondents) demonstrates that while 15 (10%) of surgeons are not at all familiar with dorsal preservation surgery, 130 (90%) were. In the group that was familiar with dorsal preservation, the majority were only somewhat familiar (84, 65%) with these techniques. Only 11 respondents received any formal training in dorsal preservation techniques during residency or fellowship. 61 (42%) had attended a course or conference in which dorsal preservation techniques were discussed. One-hundred twenty-two survey respondents (84.1%) do not currently implement preservation techniques into their rhinoplasty practice. Twelve (8%) respondents implement it in <25% of cases, 5 (3%) in 25 to 50% of cases, and 6 (4%) in >50% of cases. As research and formal training in preservation rhinoplasty grow, familiarity and implementation of these techniques will likely also grow in the United States.

Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Following Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although prior studies have identified a low risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in rhinoplasty, these studies are limited by small samples and associated risk factors remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to discern the incidence of VTE following rhinoplasty in a large patient population through analysis of a nationwide insurance claims database. METHODS: This study involved a population-based retrospective analysis of insurance claims made by patients who underwent rhinoplasty between 2007 and 2016. Established risk factors for VTE, demographic data, procedural details, and absolute incidence of VTE were collected. RESULTS: We identified a total of 55,287 patients who underwent rhinoplasty from 2007 to 2016. Mean age [standard error of the mean] was 38.74 [0.06] years (range, 18-74 years), and 54% were female. The overall incidence of VTE was 111, of which 70 were DVT and 41 were PE. From multivariate regression analysis, previous VTE (odds ratio [OR], 52.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 35.2-78.6; P < 0.0001), peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC)/central line placement (OR, 19.6; 95% CI, 9.8-153; P < 0.05), rib graft (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 2.3-8.5; P < 0.0001), age 41 to 60 years (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.7-4.3; P < 0.01), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.0-5.5; P < 0.05), and age 61 to 74 years (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < 0.05) were associated with an increased risk of VTE. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a low overall incidence of VTE in rhinoplasty patients. Previous VTE, PICC/central line, advancing age, IBD, and intraoperative rib graft harvest were most strongly associated with VTE in this population cohort.

The Use of Indocyanine Green Angiography for Cosmetic and Reconstructive Assessment in the Head and Neck.

Reconstructive procedures in the head and neck can be a surgical challenge owing to the complex anatomical and physiological structure. Different locoregional and microvascular flaps are used for various defects to improve both function and cosmesis. Subjective clinical findings have been the mainstay for perfusion monitoring; however, areas of borderline perfusion are much more difficult to assess clinically. Multiple technologies that offer objective perfusion assessment have been developed to improve surgical outcomes. Indocyanine green (ICG) angiography has gained popularity owing to its minimal invasiveness and increased sensitivity and specificity in assessing flap perfusion particularly in the head and neck. It has been extensively used in free flaps, pedicled flaps (including nasal reconstruction), facelift procedures, random flaps, skull base reconstruction, and pharyngocutaneous fistula prediction. Its perioperative use has provided valuable qualitative and quantitative data that aid our understanding of flap hemodynamics. Clinically, this impacted decision-making in flap design, harvest, inset, and precocious salvage interventions. Though increased cost and intraoperative time could be limitations, cost-effectiveness studies have supported its use, particularly in high-risk individuals. Limitations include the lack of standardized dosing and consistent methodology agreement for data analysis. Future studies should involve larger cohorts and multi-institute studies to overcome such limitations.