Objective Comparison of Donor-Site Morbidity following Full and Thoracodorsal Nerve-Preserving Split Latissimus Dorsi Flaps.

BACKGROUND: The latissimus dorsi flap is a workhorse for reconstruction. However, flap harvest has been variably reported to result in donor-site morbidity. The aim of this study was to compare donor-site morbidity following harvest of a split latissimus dorsi flap, preserving the anterior branch of the thoracodorsal nerve, and a traditional nerve-sacrificing full latissimus dorsi flap. METHODS: Patients who underwent split or full latissimus dorsi flaps between July of 2017 and August of 2020 at a single center were recalled for assessment. Donor-site morbidity in the shoulder was evaluated through the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire. Medical Research Council strength grading was also performed. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients in the split latissimus dorsi cohort and 22 patients in the full latissimus dorsi cohort were recalled. Patient-reported outcomes as assessed through the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; Shoulder Pain and Disability Index; and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire scores revealed statistically greater (p < 0.05) donor-site morbidity associated with the traditional compared to split latissimus dorsi flap. Seven patients in the full latissimus dorsi cohort had less than Medical Research Council grade 5 power at the shoulder, whereas all patients in the split latissimus dorsi cohort demonstrated full power at the shoulder. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional full latissimus dorsi flaps were found to result in greater donor-site morbidity compared to thoracodorsal nerve-preserving split latissimus dorsi flaps. Split latissimus dorsi flaps may be beneficial in preserving donor-site function and strength. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Technical Considerations and Clinical Applications of the Free Anterior Branch Split Latissimus Dorsi Flap.

BACKGROUND: The free anterior branch split latissimus dorsi flap has a reliable anatomy and advantages over the traditional latissimus dorsi flap. By preserving the posterior branch of the thoracodorsal nerve, morbidity at the donor site is reduced, preserving shoulder strength. METHODOLOGY: The purpose of this article is to review our experience with the split latissimus flap, describe our surgical technique, and finally review representative cases of reconstruction in different anatomical regions. RESULTS: From April 2017 to October 2020, 39 free split latissimus flaps were performed at a single center. Flaps were performed for coverage in the upper extremity (n = 2), lower extremity (n = 32), and head and neck (n = 5). Flap success rate was 97.4%. Mean dimensions of the flap were 17.0 × 8.3 cm, with a mean area of 145 cm2. CONCLUSIONS: The flap has a broad application and can be utilized in many different reconstructive scenarios including for coverage of defects in the extremities, trunk, and head and neck.

Objective predictors of intern performance.

BACKGROUND: Residency programs select medical students for interviews and employment using metrics such as the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, grade-point average (GPA), and class rank/quartile. It is unclear whether these metrics predict performance as an intern. This study tested the hypothesis that performance on these metrics would predict intern performance. METHODS: This single institution, retrospective cohort analysis included 244 graduates from four classes (2015-2018) who completed an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) certified internship and were evaluated by program directors (PDs) at the end of the year. PDs provided a global assessment rating and ratings addressing ACGME competencies (response rate = 47%) with five response options: excellent = 5, very good = 4, acceptable = 3, marginal = 2, unacceptable = 1. PDs also classified interns as outstanding = 4, above average = 3, average = 2, and below average = 1 relative to other interns from the same residency program. Mean USMLE scores (Step 1 and Step 2CK), third-year GPA, class rank, and core competency ratings were compared using Welch's ANOVA and follow-up pairwise t-tests. RESULTS: Better performance on PD evaluations at the end of intern year was associated with higher USMLE Step 1 (p = 0.006), Step 2CK (p = 0.030), medical school GPA (p = 0.020) and class rank (p = 0.016). Interns rated as average had lower USMLE scores, GPA, and class rank than those rated as above average or outstanding; there were no significant differences between above average and outstanding interns. Higher rating in each of the ACGME core competencies was associated with better intern performance (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Better performance as an intern was associated with higher USMLE scores, medical school GPA and class rank. When USMLE Step 1 reporting changes from numeric scores to pass/fail, residency programs can use other metrics to select medical students for interviews and employment.