"Travel Burden to ACPA Approved Cleft and Craniofacial Teams: A Geospatial Analysis".

BACKGROUND: Despite the existence of American Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Association (ACPA)-approved Cleft and Craniofacial Teams, access to multidisciplinary team-based care remains challenging for patients from rural areas, leading to disparities in care. We investigated the geospatial relationship between U.S. counties and ACPA-approved centers. METHODS: The geographic location of all ACPA-approved cleft and craniofacial centers in the U.S. was identified. Distance between individual U.S. counties (n=3,142) and their closest ACPA-approved team was determined. Counties were mapped based on distance to nearest cleft or craniofacial team. Distance calculations were combined with U.S Census data to model the number of children served by each team and economic characteristics of families served. These relationships were analyzed using independent t-tests and ANOVA. RESULTS: Over 40% of U.S. counties did not have access to an ACPA-approved craniofacial team within a 100-mile radius (n=1,267) versus 29% for cleft teams (n=909). Over 90% of counties greater than 100 miles to a craniofacial team had a population <7,500 (n=1,150). Of the counties >100 miles from a cleft team, 64% had a child poverty rate greater than national average (n=579). Counties with the highest birth rate and >100 miles to travel to an ACPA team are in the Mountain West. CONCLUSIONS: Given the time-sensitive nature of operative intervention and access to multidisciplinary care, the lack of equitable distribution in certified cleft and craniofacial teams is concerning. Centers may better serve families from distant areas by establishing satellite clinics, telehealth visits, and training local primary care providers in referral practices.

Access to Certified Burn Centers in the United States: The Geospatial and Transport Cost of Transfer.

Specialized burn centers are critical to minimizing burn-associated morbidity and mortality. However, American Burn Association-verified burn centers are unequally distributed across the United States, and fewer centers are available for pediatric patients relative to adults. The economic burden of transporting patients to these centers contributes significantly to the high cost of burn care. This study quantifies inequitable burn care access in the contiguous United States due to age group and location as a function of physical proximity to a verified burn center and transportation cost. County-level distances to the nearest verified adult or pediatric burn center were determined and mapped. Distance calculations for each population were combined with transport cost data (2022 CMS Ambulance Fee Schedules) to estimate transportation costs for each population (adult vs pediatric, urban vs rural). Pediatric patients reside 30.5 miles further than adults from the nearest center, significantly increasing transportation costs. Ground and air transport costs also increased for rural versus urban patients. Notably, rural patients face almost double the cost of air transport. While physical proximity to burn care appears to differ only modestly across age and region, this marginal increase in distance is associated with significant economic impact. This study highlights physical and economic barriers to burn care access faced by rural and pediatric patients and underscores the critical need to improve equity in burn care access. Future studies should expand on this report's findings to more fully characterize the additional costs associated with inequitable burn care access.

Allograft as an Adjunct for Free Omental Flaps for Lower Extremity Coverage of a Mangled Lower Extremity.

The utility of allograft for temporary coverage of soft tissue defects is well-established, most notably in the burn literature. Its utility as an adjunct to free tissue transfer for soft tissue defects has been described, but literature on the effectiveness of this hybrid approach for lower extremity salvage is limited. We present a series of two patients who underwent lower extremity salvage using an omental free flap and allograft followed by staged split-thickness skin grafting at our institution. Patient characteristics analyzed included age, smoking status, comorbidities, mechanism of injury, wound class, and wound surface area. Endpoints included partial or complete flap loss, number of days from allograft to autograft, postoperative infection, unplanned reoperation, and successful, functional extremity salvage.  Both patients were male, ages 50 and 35, with a BMI of 31 and 19.2 kg/m2, respectively. Both were active smokers and had contaminated Gustilo IIIB wounds with areas of over 300 cm2. Both flaps had partial necrosis, averaging 6cm2, that was debrided at the planned second stage. Neither had an unplanned return to surgery, and both patients returned to ambulation.  Allograft skin as a practical and effective adjunct to omental free flap for post-traumatic lower extremity reconstruction. It can facilitate the resolution of edema and prevent flap desiccation, allowing time demarcation of partial flap necrosis and confirmation of flap viability prior to definitive skin autograft. This is particularly useful for large surface area contaminated highly irregular traumatic lower extremity wounds.

Oncoplastic Breast Reduction: A Systematic Review of Postoperative Complications.

Background: Breast-conserving therapy with oncoplastic reduction is a useful strategy for partial mastectomy defect reconstruction. The most recently published systematic review of oncoplastic breast reduction outcomes from 2015 showed wound dehiscence in 4.3%, hematoma in 0.9%, infection in 2.8%, and nipple necrosis in 0.9% of patients. We performed a systematic review of oncoplastic breast reduction literature, comparing outcomes and complication rates reported over the past 8 years. Methods: Studies describing the use of oncoplastic breast reduction and discussion of postoperative complications were included. The primary outcome assessed was the postoperative complication rate; secondary outcomes analyzed were rates of margin expansion, completion mastectomy, and delays in adjuvant therapy due to complications. Results: Nine articles met inclusion criteria, resulting in 1715 oncoplastic breast reduction patients. The mean rate of hematoma was 3%, nipple necrosis was 2%, dehiscence was 4%, infection was 3%, and seroma was 2%. The need for re-excision of margins occurred in 8% of patients, and completion mastectomy in 2%. Finally, delay in adjuvant treatment due to a postoperative complication occurred in 4% of patients. Conclusions: Oncoplastic breast reduction is an excellent option for many patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy; however, postoperative complications can delay adjuvant radiation therapy. Results of this systematic literature review over the past 8 years showed a slight increase in complication rate compared to the most recent systematic review from 2015. With increased popularity and surgeon familiarity, oncoplastic breast reduction remains a viable option for reconstruction of partial mastectomy defects despite a slight increase in complication rate.