RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Breast augmentation using silicone implants is common, with over 300,000 annual US surgeries. It was initially approved in 1962, there were safety concerns with the use of silicone implants, leading to a 1992-2006 FDA moratorium. Recently, Breast Implant Illness (BII) was described as a cluster of symptoms associated with silicone implants, with a lack of diagnostic criteria, which increased the likelihood of implant removal and a variety of treatment options. This comprehensive review aims to shed light on the extent, symptoms, management, and outcomes of BII. METHODS: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched in May 2023 for studies on Breast Implant Illness utilizing terms related to BII and its symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Out of 1204 studies, 20 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for the included cohort prospective and retrospective studies, and the tool for evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series were utilized during quality assessment. RESULTS: There were 20 papers on Breast Implant Illness published between 1995 and 2022, including a peak of papers published in 2020 and 2022. The majority of the studies came from the USA, with a variety of research methods, including case reports. Reports of arthralgia and fatigue were common findings. These symptoms were frequently alleviated by surgical procedures such as en bloc explantation and capsulectomy, highlighting the intricacy of the problem and the need for individualized treatment plans. CONCLUSION: The review underscores the critical need for further research into BII, advocating for a multidisciplinary strategy that prioritizes patient safety, informed decision-making, and comprehensive care. As the medical community progresses in understanding and managing BII, emphasizing evidence-based practices and patient-provider communication will be essential in addressing this complex condition effectively. 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 .
RESUMO
Approximately 5% of the population has protruding ears. An antihelix deficiency or absence is a common cause of ear protrusion. Although there are over 200 techniques to manage prominent ears, there is no evidence to support using dermabraders in this situation. To the author's knowledge, this is one of the first articles to assess the clinical outcome of dermabrader use on patients with prominent ear deformities. Methods: An analysis of retrospective medical records was conducted by the senior author on patients with prominent ears treated with our novel dermabrasion technique between 2018 and 2021. The demographics, clinical assessment, and outcomes of the patients were assessed. Furthermore, the article provides a detailed description of the technique. Results: A total of 18 ears were operated on. Eight of the included patients had bilateral ear deformities, and two had unilateral deformities. The mean distance from the ear to the head at the superior helix was 29 mm (range, 25-35 mm). In our series, no complications were observed. During the most recent clinical evaluation, all patients had achieved acceptable ear positioning and excellent aesthetic results. Conclusions: Dermabrasion is a useful technique for otoplasty because no sutures are required and symmetry can be achieved in bilateral ears. Furthermore, this technology is safe, simple, reproducible, reliable, and versatile. We recommend that future studies be conducted in a prospective manner with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods to ensure the validity of the findings.
RESUMO
Background: As artificial intelligence makes rapid inroads across various fields, its value in medical education is becoming increasingly evident. This study evaluates the performance of the GPT-4.0 large language model in responding to plastic surgery board examination questions and explores its potential as a learning tool. Methods: We used a selection of 50 questions from 19 different chapters of a widely-used plastic surgery reference. Responses generated by the GPT-4.0 model were assessed based on four parameters: accuracy, clarity, completeness, and conciseness. Correlation analyses were conducted to ascertain the relationship between these parameters and the overall performance of the model. Results: GPT-4.0 showed a strong performance with high mean scores for accuracy (2.88), clarity (3.00), completeness (2.88), and conciseness (2.92) on a three-point scale. Completeness of the model's responses was significantly correlated with accuracy (P < 0.0001), whereas no significant correlation was found between accuracy and clarity or conciseness. Performance variability across different chapters indicates potential limitations of the model in dealing with certain complex topics in plastic surgery. Conclusions: The GPT-4.0 model exhibits considerable potential as an auxiliary tool for preparation for plastic surgery board examinations. Despite a few identified limitations, the generally high scores on key parameters suggest the model's ability to provide responses that are accurate, clear, complete, and concise. Future research should focus on enhancing the performance of artificial intelligence models in complex medical topics, further improving their applicability in medical education.
RESUMO
Background: The circadian rhythm is unique to each individual. The time of the day when an individual is most productive is determined by several factors associated with circadian rhythm. Some evidence suggests that late-night surgeries are associated with a better prognosis and a lower rate of complications than those performed at other times of the day. However, the impact of surgeons' preferred operating time on patients remains unclear. Objective: The present study is the first to examine at what time of the day surgeons prefer to operate. Methods: This cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study involved 15 items designed to interrogate surgeons' preferred time of day to operate. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to the consultants of different surgical specialties after explaining the purpose of the study and obtaining their consent to participate. Results: A total of 226 surgeons participated in this study, of which 192 (85%) were men. Most (25.2%) consultants were general surgeons. The weekly workload for most (66.4%) surgeons was 41-60 h. The surgeons indicated their preference to operate in the early (11.9%) or late morning (71.2%), early (15.0%) and late (1.3%) afternoon, and evening (0.4%). The key determinant of their preference was the availability of hospital resources (36.3%). Men and women tended to prefer operating in the early morning and afternoon and late afternoon, respectively. Conclusions: In the present study, most surgeons preferred to operate between 8 am and 12 noon (late morning), and their preference was determined by the availability of hospital resources.