Is Diabetes a Contraindication to Lower Extremity Flap Reconstruction? An Analysis of Threatened Lower Extremities in the NSQIP Database (2010-2020).

Background The impact of diabetes on complication rates following free flap (FF), pedicled flap (PF), and amputation (AMP) procedures on the lower extremity (LE) is examined. Methods Patients who underwent LE PF, FF, and AMP procedures were identified from the 2010 to 2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP®) database using Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Diseases-9/10 codes, excluding cases for non-LE pathologies. The cohort was divided into diabetics and nondiabetics. Univariate and adjusted multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed. Results Among 38,998 patients undergoing LE procedures, 58% were diabetic. Among diabetics, 95% underwent AMP, 5% underwent PF, and <1% underwent FF. Across all procedure types, noninsulin-dependent (NIDDM) and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM) were associated with significantly greater all-cause complication rates compared with absence of diabetes, and IDDM was generally higher risk than NIDDM. Among diabetics, complication rates were not significantly different across procedure types (IDDM: p = 0.5969; NIDDM: p = 0.1902). On adjusted subgroup analysis by diabetic status, flap procedures were not associated with higher odds of complications compared with amputation for IDDM and NIDDM patients. Length of stay > 30 days was statistically associated with IDDM, particularly those undergoing FF (AMP: 5%, PF: 7%, FF: 14%, p = 0.0004). Conclusion Our study highlights the importance of preoperative diabetic optimization prior to LE procedures. For diabetic patients, there were few significant differences in complication rates across procedure type, suggesting that diabetic patients are not at higher risk of complications when attempting limb salvage instead of amputation.

Comparing scrotoplasty complication rates in transgender and cisgender men: An ACS NSQIP study.

While masculinizing gender-affirming genital surgeries may include scrotoplasty, there has been limited research on the safety and outcomes of scrotoplasty among transgender men. We compared scrotoplasty complication rates between cisgender and transgender patients using data from the American College of Surgeon's National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Data was queried between 2013 and 2019 for all patients with procedure codes for scrotoplasty. Transgender patients were identified through a gender dysphoria diagnosis code. T-tests and Fisher's exact test were used to identify any differences in demographics, operative characteristics, and outcomes. The primary outcomes of interest were demographic factors, operative details, and surgical outcomes. A total of 234 patients were identified between 2013 and 2019. Fifty were transgender and 184 were cisgender. Age and BMI were significantly different between the two cohorts, such that the cisgender cohort was older (M trans = 38 years (SD:14), M cis = 53 years (SD: 15)) and had higher BMI than the transgender cohort (M trans = 26.9 (SD: 5.5), M cis = 35.2 (SD: 11.2)). Cisgender patients also had poorer overall health (p = 0.001), and were more likely to have hypertension (p = 0.001) and diabetes (p = 0.001). Race and ethnicity did not vary significantly between the cohorts. Operative details differed significantly between cohorts, such that transgender patients had a longer operating time (M trans = 303 min (SD: 155), M cis = 147 min (SD: 107)) and fewer transgender patients had a simple scrotoplasty (p = 0.02). The majority of gender-affirming scrotoplasties were performed by plastic surgeons (62%) whereas the majority of cisgender scrotoplasties were performed by urologists (76%). Despite these demographic and pre-operative differences, the number of patients who underwent complex scrotoplasty experiencing any of the tested complications did not differ by gender. Our results support scrotoplasty as a safe procedure for transgender patients, with no significant differences in outcomes between transgender and cisgender patients.

The Past, Present, and Future of PrEP implementation Among People Who Use Drugs.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recent HIV outbreaks among people who use drugs (PWUD) necessitate additional HIV prevention tools. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly efficacious yet uptake among PWUD remains exceedingly low. To address multilevel, complex barriers to PrEP use among PWUD, a range of intervention strategies are needed. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature on interventions to optimize PrEP use among PWUD is nascent, comprising small pilots and demonstration projects in early phases of intervention development. Initial studies suggest that structural, healthcare, interpersonal, and individual-level interventions can improve PrEP use for PWUD, and a number of efficacy trials are underway. Future studies are needed to optimize the use of new PrEP modalities (e.g., injectable PrEP), simultaneously target multilevel challenges to PrEP use, and evaluate the integration of PrEP into other service settings and substance use treatment modalities.

Structural Competency: Curriculum for Medical Students, Residents, and Interprofessional Teams on the Structural Factors That Produce Health Disparities.

Introduction: Research on disparities in health and health care has demonstrated that social, economic, and political factors are key drivers of poor health outcomes. Yet the role of such structural forces on health and health care has been incorporated unevenly into medical training. The framework of structural competency offers a paradigm for training health professionals to recognize and respond to the impact of upstream, structural factors on patient health and health care. Methods: We report on a brief, interprofessional structural competency curriculum implemented in 32 distinct instances between 2015 and 2017 throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. In consultation with medical and interprofessional education experts, we developed open-ended, written-response surveys to qualitatively evaluate this curriculum's impact on participants. Qualitative data from 15 iterations were analyzed via directed thematic analysis, coding language, and concepts to identify key themes. Results: Three core themes emerged from analysis of participants' comments. First, participants valued the curriculum's focus on the application of the structural competency framework in real-world clinical, community, and policy contexts. Second, participants with clinical experience (residents, fellows, and faculty) reported that the curriculum helped them reframe how they thought about patients. Third, participants reported feeling reconnected to their original motivations for entering the health professions. Discussion: This structural competency curriculum fills a gap in health professional education by equipping learners to understand and respond to the role that social, economic, and political structural factors play in patient and community health.