Picture Perfect: Standardizing and Safekeeping Clinical Photography in Plastic Surgery.

Plastic surgery relies heavily on clinical photography to document preoperative and postoperative changes, visualize surgical approaches, and evaluate outcomes. However, the contemporary landscape of plastic surgery photography faces challenges, including a lapse in standards due to the prevalence of smartphones, social media platforms, and security concerns related to data storage and cyberattacks. In this comprehensive review, the authors aim to provide plastic surgeons with practical guidelines for achieving standardized, high-quality clinical photography while navigating the evolving landscape of technology, security, and ethical considerations. We explore the security challenges associated with storing clinical photographs, emphasizing the legal obligations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). We also discuss various storage options, including HIPAA-compliant cloud services, electronic medical records, and emerging technologies like blockchain and artificial intelligence.

Career Development in Plastic Surgery.

SUMMARY: Professional development as a plastic surgeon is a critical component of a balanced and rewarding career. The phase of career plays an important role in what opportunities are available and what decisions must be made to affect the trajectory of the surgeon's life and practice. Engagement and proactive strategic planning can help identify these points in a career. The goal of this article is to describe some of the fundamental choices in professional development, discuss recent literature related to the phases of career progression, and present the construct of career as a continuum integrated with life goals. Foundational career planning has roots even before becoming a resident or fellow, with increasing attention paid during medical school and undergraduate years. Mentorship and leadership roles, and work-life balance challenges, grow with entry into practice. Career sustainment with continuing education, ergonomic resources, and transition to retirement become important considerations for the experienced surgeon. Career success is a diverse vision, with composition unique to the individual surgeon. Understanding the merit of different career directions will help the surgeon take full advantage of the plethora of opportunities available in the plastic surgery specialty. Importantly, this planning and engagement has contributed to the decreased rate of burnout seen in plastic surgery.

Orbital Volumetric Analysis in Patients With Unicoronal Craniosynostosis: A Comparison Between Distraction Osteogenesis and Fronto-Orbital Advancement.

BACKGROUND: Unicoronal craniosynostosis is associated with orbital restriction and asymmetry. Surgical treatment aims to both correct the aesthetic deformity and prevent the development of ocular dysfunction. We used orbital quadrant and hemispheric volumetric analysis to assess orbital restriction and compare the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis with anterior rotational cranial flap (DO) and bilateral fronto-orbital advancement and cranial vault remodeling (FOAR) with respect to the correction of orbital restriction in patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients with a diagnosis of unicoronal craniosynostosis and treated with either DO or FOAR from 2000 to 2019 was performed. Preoperative and postoperative total orbital volumes, as well as quadrant and hemispheric volume ratios, were calculated from 3-dimensional head computed tomography scans. Selected preoperative and postoperative orbital measurements, including the maxillary length of the orbit (MLO; zygomaticofrontal suture to the top of zygomatic arch) and the sphenoid length of the orbit (SLO; the top of sphenoid suture to the top of zygomatic arch), were also obtained. RESULTS: Data were available for 28 patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis. Mean preoperative total orbital volume was significantly smaller on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (10.94 vs 12.20 cm3, P = 0.04). Preoperative MLO and SLO were significantly longer on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (MLO: 20.26 vs 17.75 mm, P < 0.001; SLO: 26.91 vs 24.93 mm, P = 0.01). Distraction osteogenesis and FOAR produced significantly different changes in orbital quadrant and/or hemispheric volume ratios on the nonsynostotic side but not on the synostotic side. CONCLUSIONS: Before correction, patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis have significantly smaller total orbital volumes on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side and significantly greater MLO and SLO on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side. There is no significant difference between DO and FOAR with regard to correcting the observed orbital restriction in these patients.