The Burden of Care of Nasoalveolar Molding: An Institutional Experience.

Nasoalveolar molding (NAM) is an early presurgical intervention to facilitate primary cleft lip repair by reducing cleft severity and improving labial and nasal form. However, it continues to be associated with the burden of care that influences access and completion of therapy. The authors, therefore, aim to determine the burden of care of NAM therapy for families seeking treatment at a high-volume urban cleft center. A retrospective study of all patients undergoing primary cleft repair between 2012 and 2020 was performed. Patients were grouped based on whether or not NAM therapy was offered. Variables including physical, psychosocial, and financial factors were assessed. Two hundred and thirty patients underwent primary cleft repair between 2012 and 2020. Of these, 176 patients were indicated for NAM, with 4% discontinuing, and 54 patients did not undergo NAM. The 169 patients who completed NAM had a mean duration of treatment of 13.6±8.8 wks consisting of 15±6 scheduled NAM adjustment visits and 1±1 unscheduled visit made urgently to assess caregiver concerns. The mean travel distance was 28.6±37.1 miles. Eighty-four percent of caregivers were married, and 16% did not have English as a primary language. Though 57% had private insurance, 43% of patients received charity support for their treatment. NAM is a finite presurgical intervention that requires caregivers to participate in patient care for approximately three months of their early life. The decision to pursue NAM should be considered alongside the burden of care for caregivers to complete treatment.

Cas9-mediated knockout of Ndrg2 enhances the regenerative potential of dendritic cells for wound healing.

Chronic wounds impose a significant healthcare burden to a broad patient population. Cell-based therapies, while having shown benefits for the treatment of chronic wounds, have not yet achieved widespread adoption into clinical practice. We developed a CRISPR/Cas9 approach to precisely edit murine dendritic cells to enhance their therapeutic potential for healing chronic wounds. Using single-cell RNA sequencing of tolerogenic dendritic cells, we identified N-myc downregulated gene 2 (Ndrg2), which marks a specific population of dendritic cell progenitors, as a promising target for CRISPR knockout. Ndrg2-knockout alters the transcriptomic profile of dendritic cells and preserves an immature cell state with a strong pro-angiogenic and regenerative capacity. We then incorporated our CRISPR-based cell engineering within a therapeutic hydrogel for in vivo cell delivery and developed an effective translational approach for dendritic cell-based immunotherapy that accelerated healing of full-thickness wounds in both non-diabetic and diabetic mouse models. These findings could open the door to future clinical trials using safe gene editing in dendritic cells for treating various types of chronic wounds.

Do We Need Support in Prepectoral Breast Reconstruction? Comparing Outcomes with and without ADM.

BACKGROUND: The majority of two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction has been described utilizing acellular dermal matrix (ADM). Although reports of prepectoral breast reconstruction without ADM exist, there is a paucity of comparative studies. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients undergoing immediate prepectoral two-stage breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2017 to 2019. Short-term reconstructive and aesthetic complications were compared between cases that utilized ADM for support and those that did not. RESULTS: In total, 76 cases (51 patients) were identified, of which 35 cases utilized ADM and 41 did not. Risk factors and demographics were similar between the two cohorts with the exception of body mass index, which was higher in the ADM cohort (29.3 versus 25.4, P = 0.011). Average follow-up length was also longer in patients who received ADM (20.3 versus 12.3 months, P < 0.001). Intraoperative expander fill was higher in patients who did not receive ADM (296.8 cm3 versus 151.4 cm3, P < 0.001) though final implant size was comparable in both cohorts (P = 0.584). There was no significant difference in the rate of any complication between the ADM and no ADM cohorts (25.7% versus 17.1%, respectively P = 0.357), including major mastectomy flap necrosis (P = 0.245), major infection (P = 1.000), seroma (P = 0.620), expander explantation (P = 1.000), capsular contracture (P = 1.000), implant dystopia (P = 1.000), and rippling (P = 0.362). CONCLUSIONS: Immediate two-stage prepectoral breast reconstruction with tissue expanders has comparable rates of short-term complications with or without ADM support. Safety of prepectoral expander placement without ADM may warrant more selective ADM use in these cases.