The impact of perioperative hypothermia on plastic surgery outcomes: a multivariate logistic regression of 1062 cases.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative hypothermia has been associated with increased rates of infection, prolonged recovery time, and coagulopathy. OBJECTIVES: The authors assessed the impact of hypothermia on patient outcomes after plastic surgery and analyzed the impact of prewarming on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: The medical charts of 1062 patients who underwent complex plastic surgery typically lasting at least 1 hour were reviewed. Hypothermia was defined as a temperature at or below 36°C. Postoperative complication data were collected for outcomes including infection, delayed wound healing, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, deep venous thrombosis, and overall wound problems. Odds ratios (ORs) were estimated from 3 multivariate logistic regression models of hypothermia and one model of body contouring procedures that included prewarming as a parameter. RESULTS: Perioperative hypothermia was not a significant predictor of wound problems (OR = 0.83; P = .28). In the stratified regression model, hypothermia did not significantly impact wound problems. The regression model measuring the interaction between hypothermia and operating time did not show a significantly increased risk of wound problems. Prewarming did not significantly affect perioperative hypothermia (P = .510), and in the model of body contouring procedures with prewarming as a categorical variable, massive weight loss was the most significant predictor of wound complications (OR = 2.57; P = .003). Prewarming did not significantly affect outcomes (OR = 1.49; P = .212). CONCLUSIONS: Based on univariate and multivariate models in our study, mild perioperative hypothermia appears to be independent of wound complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4: Risk.

The use of non-invasive instruments in characterizing human facial and abdominal skin.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The skin is highly variable. This variation, although helpful for function, causes inconsistencies when assessed using subjective scales. The purpose of this study is to measure differences in skin on the face and abdomen using non-invasive, objective devices as a method to eliminate subjective error and help reduce intra- and inter-observer variability in clinical analysis. STUDY DESIGN/MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-eight subjects between the ages of 18 and 61 were enrolled in this study. These subjects varied in age, ethnicity, and Fitzpatrick score. Facial analysis was performed by clinical evaluation and utilizing non-invasive objective devices which included the DermaScan C 20 MHz HFUS (Cyberderm, Broomall, PA), Tru Vu (Johnson and Johnson), BTC 2000 (SRLI Technologies, Nashville, TN), Derma Unit SSC3 (CK Electronic, Köln, Germany), and the Chromometer. RESULTS: Non-invasive devices were shown to be consistent and accurate through repeated measurement at each of the anatomical points with error rates of less than 5%. Chromometer measurements were able to categorize patients into Fitzpatrick level. DermaScan measurements demonstrated decreasing skin thicknesses associated with increasing age, smoking, and female gender. Derma Unit SSC 3 showed gender and sun exposure related differences in sebum concentration, pH, and moisture content. The Derma Unit SSC 3 sebum concentration also showed correlation with Tru Vu readings for clogged pores and bacterial activity. CONCLUSION: The skin assessment scales that are in use today are often prone to variability and inaccuracy due to their subjectivity. Use of the described objective non-invasive facial analysis method provides an accurate, objective analysis of human skin which can be used to measure changes pre- and post-operatively, or even screen patients prior to procedure to identify non-responders or those prone to adverse events. Utilization of these devices introduces a foundation on which a strong evidence-based approach to aesthetic medicine can be built.

Effect of 4% topical lidocaine applied to the face on the serum levels of lidocaine and its metabolite, monoethylglycinexylidide.

BACKGROUND: Topical lidocaine is a common form of anesthesia for a wealth of procedures across a large number of disciplines, including laser treatments. Preparations can be purchased over the counter with no prescription necessary. It is considered a safer and more acceptable form of anesthetic than hypodermic injections; however, there have been reports of fatalities following its application. Above certain serum lidocaine concentrations, patients may experience effects of toxicity such as lightheadedness and paraesthesia; these effects can progress to seizures and cardiorespiratory depression, which can ultimately lead to death. The active metabolite of lidocaine, monoethylglycinexylidide (MEGX), can be almost as potent as lidocaine in terms of toxicity. OBJECTIVES: The authors examine the levels of both lidocaine and MEGX in blood serum after application of topical lidocaine. METHODS: Twenty-five healthy volunteers were assigned to one of four groups (A, B, C, D). Group A had 2.5 g of 4% lidocaine topical anesthetic cream applied to the face for one hour without occlusion, Group B had 5 g applied to the face for one half-hour without occlusion, Group C had 5 g applied to the face for one hour without occlusion, and Group D had 5 g applied to the face for one hour with occlusion. To evaluate serum concentrations, blood was drawn every 30 minutes for four hours. RESULTS: Group D showed the highest serum levels of lidocaine and MEGX, a three-fold increase compared with group C, which received the same dose (5g topical 4% lidocaine) but without occlusion. In group D, peak serum levels occurred at 90 minutes for serum lidocaine, which was also the fastest of the four groups. Serum MEGX levels peaked much later than serum lidocaine levels, at 210 minutes. Individual serum levels did not exceed 0.6 µg/mL. Across the groups, there was significant interindividual variation in both lidocaine and MEGX serum levels (P = .061). Applications of 5 g of 4% lidocaine resulted in higher serum concentration of both lidocaine and MEGX. When comparing group A to group C, doubling the dose of 4% lidocaine from 2.5 g to 5 g resulted in double the serum levels of MEGX and a 50% increase in the serum lidocaine levels (P = .021). When comparing groups C and D, the addition of an occlusive dressing resulted in a tripling of the serum lidocaine levels and a doubling of the serum MEGX levels, both of which were statistically significant (P < .001). When comparing all four groups, there were significant differences between the combined serum concentrations of lidocaine and MEGX (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Topical lidocaine preparations are increasingly being employed to provide a patient-friendly form of noninvasive analgesia for a multitude of procedures. Some preparations are available over the counter for unsupervised patient application. Our study has demonstrated significant interindividual variability for a given dose, especially when occlusion is applied. There have been fatalities resulting from topical lidocaine application, and our study suggests that this is the result of the unpredictability of lidocaine metabolism between individuals. Therefore, we recommend that caution be exercised with topical lidocaine preparations, in particular when applied in conjunction with occlusive dressings.