A systematic review of patient outcomes for primary pediatric flexor tendon repairs.

Background: Literature on pediatric flexor tendon repairs remains sparse. Given the various repair techniques and rehabilitation protocols available, the aim of this systematic review is to investigate outcomes of primary pediatric flexor tendon repairs. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from inception to June 2022 in concordance with PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if patients were under the age of 18, sustained a flexor tendon injury repaired primarily, and had documented functional outcomes. Quality assessment was completed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018089089). Results: This study includes 20 articles representing 577 patients with 748 injured digits, most frequently injured by a laceration from glass. The number of tendon injuries in zones I, II, III, IV, and V were 78, 431, 62, 2, and 19, respectively. In total, 594 FDP, 374 FDS, and 77 FPL tendons were lacerated. Concurrent digital nerve injuries occurred in 251 digits. Time of repair was 15 â€‹h-187 days post-injury, most commonly via the modified Kessler (n â€‹= â€‹266 digits) and Kessler (n â€‹= â€‹162 digits). Post-operatively, 170 patients were immobilized and 261 patients underwent early active (n â€‹= â€‹96) or passive (n â€‹= â€‹165) protocols. Functional outcomes were reported in 466 digits (excellent â€‹= â€‹306, good â€‹= â€‹132, fair â€‹= â€‹19, and poor â€‹= â€‹9, per the respective assessment tool used). There were 15 tendon ruptures. Conclusions: Despite heterogeneity in both operative and post-operative protocols, there is low level evidence that low complication rates and good outcomes are expected following primary repair of pediatric flexor tendons.

Gender Equality in Plastic Surgery Training: A Canadian Nationwide Cross-sectional Analysis.

Introduction: One of the important factors in achieving gender equity is ensuring equitable surgical training for all. Previous studies have shown that females get significantly lower surgical exposure than males in certain surgical specialties. Gender gap in surgical exposure has never been assessed in plastic surgery. To that end, the goal of this study was to assess if there are any differences in plastic surgery training between male and female residents. Methods: A survey was sent to all plastic surgery residency programs in Canada to assess the No. of surgeries residents operated on as a co-surgeon or primary assistant during their training. The survey also assessed career goals, level of interest in the specialty, and subjective perception of gender bias. Results: A total of 89 plastic surgery residents (59.3% participation rate) completed the survey and were included in the study. The average No. of reconstructive cases residents operated on as a co-surgeon or primary assistant was 245 ± 312 cases. There was no difference in either reconstructive or aesthetic surgery case logs between male and female residents (p > .05). However, a significantly larger proportion of females (39%) compared to males (4%) felt that their gender limited their exposure to surgical cases and led to a worsening of their overall surgical training (p < .001). Finally, a larger proportion of male residents were interested in academic careers while a larger proportion of female residents were interested in a community practice (p = .024). Conclusion: While there is no evidence of differences in the volume of logged cases between genders, female surgical residents still feel that their respective gender limits their overall surgical training. Gender inequalities in training should be addressed by residency programs.

Introduction: L'un des facteurs importants pour atteindre l'égalité des genres est d'assurer une formation chirurgicale équitable pour tous. Des études antérieures ont montré que les femmes ont une exposition significativement moindre à la chirurgie que les hommes dans certaines spécialités chirurgicales. L'écart entre genres pour l'exposition à la chirurgie n'a jamais été évalué en chirurgie plastique. À cette fin, la présente étude a eu pour objectif d'évaluer s'il y avait des différences dans la formation à la chirurgie plastique entre les résidents masculins et féminins. Méthodes: Une enquête a été envoyée à tous les programmes canadiens de résidence en chirurgie plastique pour évaluer le nombre d'interventions auxquelles les résidents ont participé en tant que co-chirurgien ou assistant principal au cours de leur formation. L'enquête a également évalué les objectifs de carrière, le niveau d'intérêt dans la spécialité et la perception subjective d'un biais lié au genre. Résultats: En tout, 89 résidents en chirurgie plastique (taux de participation de 59,3 %) ont répondu à l'enquête et ont été inclus dans l'étude. Le nombre moyen de cas de chirurgie reconstructrice au cours desquelles les résidents sont intervenus en tant que co-chirurgien ou principal assistant était de 245 ± 312 cas. Il n'y a pas eu de différence entre les journaux de cas, qu'il s'agisse de chirurgie reconstructrice ou de chirurgie esthétique entre résidents masculins et féminins (P > 0,05). Cependant, un nettement plus grand pourcentage de femmes (39 %) que d'hommes (4 %) estimait que leur genre limitait leur exposition à des cas chirurgicaux et résultait dans une aggravation de leur formation globale à la chirurgie (P < 0,001). Enfin, un plus grand pourcentage de résidents masculins était intéressé par une carrière universitaire alors qu'un plus grand pourcentage de résidentes était intéressé par une pratique dans la communauté (P = 0,024). Conclusion: Bien qu'il n'y ait pas de données probantes étayant des différences de volume des cas consignés entre les genres, les résidentes féminines en chirurgie pensent encore que leur genre limite leur formation chirurgicale. Les inégalités entre genres devraient être abordées par les programmes de résidence.

The risk of bias of non-randomized observational studies in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction: A systematic review using ROBINS-I.

INTRODUCTION: The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is regarded as the gold standard for autologous breast reconstruction. However, due to difficulty designing and conducting randomized controlled trials in surgical interventions, the majority of literature on DIEP flap breast reconstructions are observational studies. As such, it is pivotal that these studies are performed with high internal validity. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from January 1, 2015 to October 23, 2021. Studies identified as observational studies about DIEP breast reconstruction and published in a journal with a Web of Science impact factor above 1.0 were included. Screening and risk of bias (RoB) assessment using the ROBINS-I tool were performed independently and in duplicate by two authors. RESULTS: From 12,371 studies, 66 observational studies were included. The majority were found at RoB, with 11 at moderate, 26 at serious, and 6 at critical RoB. Only two studies had low RoB. The bias most commonly arose due to Domain 1 (confounding variables), Domain 3 (classification of interventions), and Domain 6 (measurement of outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: In this review, we demonstrate the high RoB of observational studies evaluating DIEP breast reconstruction, which may jeopardize the validity of findings. We recommend that authors consult the ROBINS-I tool not only when assessing observational studies for systematic reviews but also when designing or conducting these studies. In our study, we present additional considerations for each domain to provide researchers with guidance on assessing and conducting surgical observational studies.

Dermal regenerative matrix use in burn patients: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Dermal regenerative matrices (DRMs) have been used for several decades in the treatment of acute and reconstructive burn injury. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review of the literature to assess clinical outcomes and safety profile of DRMs in full-thickness burn injury. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library were performed from 1988 to 2017. Two independent reviewers completed preliminary and full-text screening of all articles. English-language articles reporting on DRM use in patients with full-thickness burn injury were included. RESULTS: Literature search generated 914 unique articles. Following screening, 203 articles were assessed for eligibility, and 72 met inclusion criteria for analysis. DRM was applied to1084 patients (74% acute burns, 26% burn reconstruction). Of the twelve studies that described changes in ROM, significant improvement was observed in 95% of reconstructive patients. The most frequently treated reconstructive sites were the neck, hand/wrist, lower extremity, and axilla. Vancouver scar scale was used in eight studies and indicated a significant improvement in the scar quality with DRM. The overall complication rate was 13%, most commonly infection, graft loss, hematoma formation, and contracture. CONCLUSIONS: Although variability in functional and cosmetic outcomes was observed, DRM demonstrates improvements in ROM and scar appearance without objective regression. Essential demographic data were lacking in many studies, highlighting the need for future standardization of reporting outcomes in burns following application of dermal substitutes.