Eyeing Risks: A Critical Analysis of the Use of Periorbital Steroids in Fronto-orbital Advancement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes associated with two techniques of periorbital steroid administration in bilateral fronto-orbital advancement (FOA). DESIGN: Multi-institutional retrospective chart review. SETTING: Two high volume, tertiary US craniofacial centers. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent FOA between 2012 and 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into three cohorts based on method of steroid administration. Groups GEL and INJ represent those who received steroids in the form of triamcinolone soaked gelfoam or direct injection of dilute triamcinolone to the frontal/periorbital region, respectively. Group NON did not receive any periorbital steroids. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Peri-operative outcomes including hospital length of stay and complications were evaluated based on method of periorbital steroid administration. Variables predictive of infectious complications were assessed using stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Four hundred and twelve patients were included in our sample (INJ:249, GEL:87, NON:76). Patients in the INJ group had a higher ASA class (P < .001) while patients in the NON group were significantly more likely to be syndromic (P < .001) and have multisuture craniosynostosis (P < .001). Rate of infectious complications for each cohort were NON: 2.6%, INJ: 4.4%, and GEL: 10.3%. There was no significant difference between groups in hospital length of stay (P = .654) or rate of post-operative infectious complications (P = .061). Increased ASA class (P = .021), increased length of stay (P = .016), and increased intraoperative narcotics (P = .011) were independent predictors of infectious complications. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a dose-dependent relationship between periorbital steroids and rate of postoperative infections, with key contributions from ASA class, hospital length of stay, and dose of intraoperative narcotics.

Patient outcomes and complications following various maxillomandibular fixation techniques: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods. METHODS: A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types. Conventional Erich arch bars were compared to hybrid arch bars, MMF screws, and eyelet interdental wiring. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a statistical significance of P < 0.05. RESULTS: Among the 4234 articles identified, 24 were included, and 17 were meta-analyzed. Time to achieve MMF (-43.38 min; 95% CI, -58.20 to -28.56; P < 0.001), total operative time (-30.33 min; 95% CI, -61.05 to 0.39; P = 0.05), incidence of wire puncture injuries and glove perforations (0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.30; P < 0.001), and incidence of poor oral hygiene (0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P < 0.001) were lower for alternative MMF interventions compared to those of the conventional Erich arch bars. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative MMF methods required shorter operative time to achieve MMF and demonstrated other increased efficiencies of practice such as shorter total operative time and decreased glove perforations, when compared to conventional Erich arch bars. If a patient is a candidate for MMF, the presented alternative MMF techniques should be considered depending on the clinical context and availability of institutional resources.

Strength in Numbers: A SWOT Analysis of Plastic Surgery.

Background: Plastic surgeons comprise the minority of practicing surgeons, with an even smaller minority practicing in an academic setting. As the practice of medicine and the systems in which we operate continue to evolve, it is essential that plastic surgeons have a say in the changing landscape. This study conducted a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of plastic surgery to identify unifying strengths and common threats. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons' Winter Meeting attendees on three separate occasions preceding the meeting. Respondents were asked to provide demographic information and to identify the top three strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analysis) for the specialty. Subgroup analyses were performed based on demographic characteristics. Results: A total of 187 responses were received from meeting attendees, representing an 89.0% response rate. Most respondents were non-Hispanic (78.6%), White (66.8%), women (59.5%), and faculty/independent physicians (65.8%). The most identified strength in plastic surgery was our problem-solving abilities (62.0%). The most identified weakness was poor public perception of plastic surgery (54.0%). The most identified opportunity was demonstration of value to health systems (67.9%), and the most identified threat was scope of practice creep by other specialties (78.1%). The SWOT analysis identified lack of surgeon diversity as a key weakness, improvement of surgeon diversity as a key opportunity, and lack of diversity among plastic surgeons as a key threat to the specialty. Conclusion: Only through a diverse but united front can we effectively use our strengths to face our threats and employ opportunities to overcome our weaknesses.

Deconstructing the Excellent Plastic Surgeon: A Survey of Key Attributes.

Background: Most plastic surgeons practice in nonacademic settings, leaving a small subset of academic plastic surgeons with the responsibility of selecting the future generation of plastic surgeons without representation from a majority of our field. This raises questions as to whether the academic attributes valued during residency selection are valid predictive markers of who will become an excellent plastic surgeon. A survey was conducted of both academic and nonacademic plastic surgeons, as well as trainees, to determine what traits are considered most essential to being an excellent plastic surgeon. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed before the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons 10th Annual Winter Meeting. Demographics and information regarding the respondents' training and academic status were collected. Respondents were asked to select five traits that they considered most important to be an excellent plastic surgeon from a list of 20 preselected traits. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used to perform subgroup analyses. Results: A total of 187 responses were received from meeting attendees, representing an 89.0% response rate. Overall, the five values endorsed as most important for a plastic surgeon were being technically sound (53%), collaborative (48%), ethical (44%), compassionate (37%), and emotionally intelligent (33%). However, the emphasis placed on these different attributes differed significantly amongst different demographic groups. Conclusion: It is important that we use methods such as holistic review when evaluating plastic surgery applicants to ensure our selection process is congruent with the traits we value.