Fat Grafting in Orthognathic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Fat grafting is widely utilized in craniofacial surgery. The authors describe a series of consecutive patients who underwent orthognathic surgery with fat grafting by the senior author and review relevant literature in the field; fat grafting technique is discussed in detail. The authors also highlight 3 patients to illustrate postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of consecutive orthognathic surgery patients was reviewed. Age, sex, BMI, procedure, area of harvest, location of injection, donor site complications, and need for repeat fat grafting were analyzed. Inclusion criteria included history of orthognathic surgery and concomitant fat grafting performed by the senior author in 2015. RESULTS: Fifty-three orthognathic surgery patients with concurrent fat grafting were reviewed. The cohort comprised 20 males (37.7%) and 33 females (62.3%). Thirty-three patients (62.3%) underwent Le Fort I operations either in conjunction with genioplasty and/or bilateral sagittal split osteotomies. Twenty-eight patients (52.8%) underwent second operations involving additional fat grafting. The majority of these patients (15/28, 53.6%) received additional fat grafting during ensuing rhinoplasty. There were no donor site complications (ie, infection, wound breakdown) recorded in the authors' patient cohort. Amount of fat injected averaged 13.1 cc (range 5-25 cc). Follow-up generally occurred through the 1-year mark. CONCLUSIONS: Fat grafting is a proven technique to facilitate optimal postoperative wound-healing in orthognathic surgery. The senior author uses Telfa processing and the Coleman system to deliver the fat atraumatically. The authors' cohort of consecutive patients corroborates the benefits of fat grafting in craniofacial surgery; the authors observe wound-healing benefits, enhanced aesthetic outcomes and an anti-inflammatory effect with this technique.

Management of Craniosynostosis at an Advanced Age: Controversies, Clinical Findings, and Surgical Treatment.

BACKGROUND: The natural history of unrepaired craniosynostosis is not well defined. Delayed surgical intervention carries greater risk of postoperative complications and its functional benefits for older patients are poorly characterized. The authors reviewed patients in whom children presented beyond 1 year of age to better understand the natural history of craniosynostosis, and the risk-benefit relationship for delayed reconstruction. METHODS: After institutional IRB approval the authors conducted a retrospective review of patients who presented after 1 year of age with craniosynostosis. Type of craniosynostosis, age at evaluation, medical history, surgical findings, developmental abnormalities, ophthalmologic findings, and clinical course were reviewed. RESULTS: Ten patients with delayed presentation for craniosynostosis were identified. The mean age at presentation was 6.8 years ±â€Š4.2 years (range, 3-17 years). Seven of 10 patients presented with developmental delay. Five patients presented with debilitating headaches. Five patients presented with comorbid Chiari malformations, 3 of whom required surgical decompression. Two patients had papilledema. Four patients underwent intracranial pressure monitoring, with elevated pressures found in 3 patients. Six patients underwent delayed cranial vault remodeling. There were no peri- or postoperative complications, including infection or residual bony defects, in those undergoing delayed operation. CONCLUSIONS: Children who present in a delayed fashion with unrepaired craniosynostosis have high rates of debilitating headaches, developmental delays, head shape anomalies, and Chiari malformation. Five patients reporting preoperative headaches noted subjective improvements in headaches following delayed operation. Cranial reconstruction can be safely performed at an older age and is appropriate to consider in carefully selected patients for aesthetic and/or functional concerns.

Transabdominal Breast Augmentation: A Review of 114 Cases Performed over 14 Years.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty patients are frequently candidates for breast rejuvenation as well. Transabdominal breast augmentation permits insertion of breast implants through the abdominoplasty incision. This combined procedure is preferentially performed in an outpatient setting under monitored anesthesia care and nerve blocks. METHODS: This study was a 14-year retrospective review of a single surgeon's technique and outcomes using transabdominal breast augmentation through a low transverse abdominoplasty incision in select patients requesting simultaneous abdominoplasty and bilateral breast augmentation. Patients had minimal ptosis, smoking cessation a minimum of 4 weeks before surgery and indefinitely thereafter, and a lack of superior abdominal or significant breast surgery. RESULTS: The study's 114 patients had a mean follow-up of 19.2 months. The procedure was performed under monitored anesthesia care with intercostal nerve blocks for most patients [n = 107 (93.9 percent)] and general anesthesia [n = 7 (6.1 percent)] for a few. Seventy-nine patients [n = 74 (64.9 percent)] underwent additional procedures, with most (n = 48) undergoing suction-assisted lipectomy. Many patients underwent multiple procedures. Most complications occurred predictably along the central distal abdominoplasty flap and were minor (small wound breakdown, seroma, and mild skin infection). Major complications [n = 8 (7.0 percent)] included two patients with implant malposition requiring revision and one patient with a Baker grade III capsule; notably, this patient was a half-pack-per-day smoker with a body mass index of 27 kg/m. CONCLUSIONS: Transabdominal breast augmentation is a safe, reliable procedure in the appropriately selected, healthy patient and may be used in minimally to moderately ptotic patients who request concurrent breast augmentation and abdominoplasty. Morbidity compares favorably to reported abdominoplasty series in the appropriately selected patient. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.