Nonaesthetic Applications for Botulinum Toxin in Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Since their introduction to clinical medicine in 1989, botulinum toxin injections have been used for many indications. First used for nonsurgical management of strabismus, botulinum toxin injections are now widely used in plastic and reconstructive surgery for aesthetic indications; however, nonaesthetic indications of botulinum toxin have grown tremendously over the past two decades and span numerous specialties, including urology, dermatology, ophthalmology, otolaryngology, gynecology, plastic surgery, general surgery, and neurology. The present review aims to highlight nonaesthetic indications of botulinum toxin that are most relevant to the plastic surgeon with an emphasis on evidence-based practice. METHODS: A PubMed search with manual reference checking was conducted to find the most relevant and influential articles on the nonaesthetic uses of botulinum toxin within the realm of adult plastic surgery. Studies were then categorized into areas of use, and quality of evidence for each category was highlighted. RESULTS: Botulinum toxin has numerous nonaesthetic indications in plastic surgery, including for select pain-related disorders, skeletal muscle activity disorders, exocrine gland hyperfunction, wound healing, Raynaud phenomenon, abdominal wall reconstruction, and prosthetic breast reconstruction and augmentation. Although these indications have been widely reported, high-quality evidence supporting efficacy, optimal dose, and injection protocol with randomized controlled trials is lacking in many areas. CONCLUSIONS: Botulinum toxin is widely used in plastic surgery for a variety of nonaesthetic indications. Future studies should focus on investigating efficacy and best practice with high level of evidence research.

Solving Congestion in the Plastic Surgery Match: A Game Theory Analysis.

Plastic and reconstructive surgery is among the most competitive specialties in the residency match. Applicants seeking to maximize their chances of a successful match often submit numerous applications to the National Residency Matching Program. It is not uncommon for those applying to plastic and reconstructive surgery to apply to every program. The high application volume imparts significant time and financial burden for applicants and programs alike. Furthermore, it makes distinguishing between applicants with a genuine interest in a specific program and those who are merely hoping to improve their chances vastly more difficult. The authors sought to characterize trends in the match rate, as the number of integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery programs continues to increase. Furthermore, they reviewed the literature on game theory for possible solutions to residency application congestion. The authors propose the use of the game theory model to explain the observed results and show why an application limit is the most reasonable approach to address this issue.

Plastic Surgery Resident-Run Cosmetic Clinics: A Survey of Current Practices.

BACKGROUND: The recently increased minimum aesthetic surgery requirements set by the Plastic Surgery Residency Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education highlight the importance of aesthetic surgery training for plastic surgery residents. Participation in resident aesthetic surgery clinics has become an important tool to achieve this goal. Yet, there is little literature on the current structure of these clinics. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate current practices of aesthetic resident-run clinics in the United States. METHODS: A survey examining specific aspects of chief resident clinics was distributed to 70 plastic surgery resident program directors in the United States. Thirty-five questions sought to delineate clinic structure, procedures and services offered, financial cost to the patient, and satisfaction and educational benefit derived from the experience. RESULTS: Fifty-two questionnaires were returned, representing 74.2% of programs surveyed. Thirty-two (63%) reported having a dedicated resident aesthetic surgery clinic at their institution. The most common procedures performed were abdominoplasty (n = 20), breast augmentation (n = 19), and liposuction (n = 16). Most clinics offered neuromodulators (n = 29) and injectable fillers (n = 29). The most common billing method used was a 50% discount on surgeon fee, with the patient being responsible for the entirety of hospital and anesthesia fees. Twenty-six respondents reported feeling satisfied or very satisfied with their resident aesthetic clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found aesthetic chief resident clinics to differ greatly in their structure. Yet the variety of procedures and services offered makes participation in these clinics an effective training method for the development of both aesthetic surgical technique and resident autonomy.

Keeping it in the family: the impact of marital status and next of kin on cancer treatment and survival.

BACKGROUND: This study examines the impact of marriage and next of kin identity on timing of diagnosis, treatment, and survival in cancer patients. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with 5 solid tumor types treated at an academic medical center from 2002 to 2012. Exposures of interest were marriage status at time of diagnosis and familial relationship with next of kin (NOK). Association with overall survival determined via Cox regressions and with early diagnosis (stage I to II) and receipt of surgery via logistic regressions. RESULTS: Marriage was not associated with early diagnosis for any cancer type. After adjustment, being married was associated with significantly higher odds of receiving surgery only for pancreatic cancer and with improved survival for breast and lung cancers. Having a nuclear relationship with NOK was not associated with any outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Marriage status was associated with improved outcomes for certain cancers whereas familial relationship with NOK was not.

Intensive postoperative glucose control reduces the surgical site infection rates in gynecologic oncology patients.

OBJECTIVE: SSI rates after gynecologic oncology surgery vary from 5% to 35%, but are up to 45% in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Strict postoperative glucose control by insulin infusion has been shown to lower morbidity, but not specifically SSI rates. Our project studied continuous postoperative insulin infusion for 24h for gynecologic oncology patients with DM and hyperglycemia with a target blood glucose of <139 mL/dL and a primary outcome of the protocol's impact on SSI rates. METHODS: We compared SSI rates retrospectively among three groups. Group 1 was composed of patients with DM whose blood glucose was controlled with intermittent subcutaneous insulin injections. Group 2 was composed of patients with DM and postoperative hyperglycemia whose blood glucose was controlled by insulin infusion. Group 3 was composed of patients with neither DM nor hyperglycemia. We controlled for all relevant factors associated with SSI. RESULTS: We studied a total of 372 patients. Patients in Group 2 had an SSI rate of 26/135 (19%), similar to patients in Group 3 whose rate was 19/89 (21%). Both were significantly lower than the SSI rate (43/148, 29%) of patients in Group 1. This reduction of 35% is significant (p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis showed an odd ratio = 0.5 (0.28-0.91) in reducing SSI rates after instituting this protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Initiating intensive glycemic control for 24h after gynecologic oncology surgery in patients with DM and postoperative hyperglycemia lowers the SSI rate by 35% (OR = 0.5) compared to patients receiving intermittent sliding scale insulin and to a rate equivalent to non-diabetics.