Effect of Underlying Mental Health Disorders on the Correlation Between Patient- and Surgeon-Graded Synkinesis Scores.

Background: Little is known about how depression and appearance anxiety affect patient reporting of synkinesis severity. Learning/Study Objective: Measure prevalence of depression and appearance anxiety in facial synkinesis and correlations between subjective and surgeon-graded synkinesis severity. Design Type: Prospective cohort. Methods: Patients with synkinesis volunteered and completed: Synkinesis Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ), facial clinimetric evaluation (FaCE) scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and Fear of Negative Appearance Evaluation Scale (FNAES). Standardized videos were scored by facial plastic surgeons using Sunnybrook Scale and eFaCE. Multivariate linear regression was used to compare patient- and surgeon-graded metrics. Results: One hundred patients participated, 91 were female. Mean age was 56.4 (12.3). Eight percent identified as Black and 87% White. The most common nerve injury etiology was idiopathic (47%). Mean synkinesis duration was 7.6 years (6.2). Twenty percent and 15% reported history of an anxiety or depressive disorder, respectively. Patient (SAQ, FaCE) and clinician (Sunnybrook, eFaCE) scores were correlated (Pearson's r 0.223-0.294, p < 0.05). Upon adjusting for CES-D/FNAES, correlations between most patient and clinician metrics became stronger. As CES-D and FNAES worsened, patient-clinician correlations weakened. Conclusions: Depression and appearance anxiety may affect patient reporting of synkinesis severity. Worse mental health scores may decorrelate patient and clinician synkinesis assessments.

National Trends of Otolaryngology Involvement in Cleft Surgical Management over 10-Years.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical management of cleft lip/palate and cleft rhinoplasty have historically been performed by plastic surgeons. No study has addressed temporal trends in cleft-associated surgeries. This study assesses trends in cleft surgical management and complications in a national database. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric database from 2012 to 2021. Patients receiving cleft lip and/or palate repair were isolated using CPT codes. A subset receiving cleft rhinoplasty was also analyzed. The yearly proportion of otolaryngologists compared to general plastic surgeons performing surgeries was noted. Regression analysis was used to identify trends and predictors of management by OHNS. RESULTS: We identified 46,618 cases of cleft repair, of which 15.6% (N = 7,255) underwent repair with otolaryngology. On univariate Pearson correlation analysis, neither cleft rhinoplasties performed by OHNS over time (R = 0.371, 95% CI -0.337 to 0.811, p = 0.2907) nor all cases (R = -0.26, -0.76 to 0.44, p = 0.465) exhibited a significant change. On multivariable regression, the operative year was not associated with being treated by otolaryngology (p = 0.826) for all cleft cases but was associated with such in cleft rhinoplasties (OR 1.04, 1.01-1.08, p = 0.024). On multivariable analysis, the operative year was correlated with a higher rate of complications overall (OR 1.04, 1.01-1.07, p = 0.002). Surgeon specialty was not associated with complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: In the last 10 years, no change in the proportion of cleft lip/palate repair performed by OHNS was observed. Otolaryngologists are performing more cleft rhinoplasty but at a marginal rate. Otolaryngologists also manage more complex patients with multiple comorbidities compared to their colleagues. Complication rates have increased overall regardless of surgeon specialty, warranting further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:671-677, 2024.

Early Postoperative Complications in Microtia Reconstruction: An Analysis of the NSQIP-P Database.

OBJECTIVES: Microtia and anotia repair require techniques that consider both aesthetics and function. The outcomes of different reconstructive frameworks such as costal cartilage or a porous polyethylene implant have not been evaluated on a national scale. We aim to understand differences in outcomes/complication rates and operative times between different reconstructive frameworks used in microtia/anotia reconstruction. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Pediatric database between 2012-2019. Patients with ICD-9/10 codes for microtia/anotia were isolated. Reconstruction methods were identified using CPT codes for rib graft, ear cartilage graft, and alloplastic implants (biocompatible implants, porous polyethylene, etc). Outcomes included operative-time, wound complications, and unplanned re-operations within 30 days of surgery. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounders. RESULTS: We included 593 patients for analysis. Reconstruction with rib grafts (N = 506, 85%) was the most common. In 58 patients (9.8%), an implant was used for the auricular framework, whereas in 47 (7.9%) ear cartilage grafts were used. The overall wound complication rate was 3.4%. On univariate analysis, alloplastic implants exhibited a higher rate of wound complications (8.6% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.037) and longer operative times (350 min vs. 235 min, p < 0.001). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, implants conferred an independently increased risk of wound complications (OR 3.52, 1.10-9.54, p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Although the use of alloplastic implants (e.g., porous polyethylene) may confer an increased risk of early complications, the long-term clinical implications of these findings are unclear relative to aesthetic benefits. Multi-institutional studies are needed to validate these findings using patient-specific and surgeon-specific data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Laryngoscope, 134:1214-1219, 2024.

Time-to-operation delays and in-hospital complications in operative facial trauma: A national analysis.

BACKGROUND: Management of facial fractures is variable. Understanding how time to operative management impacts outcomes can help standardize practice. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the ACS Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database between 2016 and 2019. Adult patients with operative facial fractures were isolated by ICD-10 procedure codes, and further stratified by fracture location, including the mandible, orbit, maxilla, zygoma, and frontal bone. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to predict in-hospital complications (both surgical and systemic complications) adjusting for time-to-operation, comorbidities, fracture location, AIS, and demographics. RESULTS: 1678 patients with operative facial fractures were identified. The median time-to-operation was 2 days (IQR 1.0-2.0 days). Most patients only had one operative fracture (95 %) and orbital fracture was the most common (44 %). The overall complication rate was higher for those operated after 2 days compared to those operated between 1 and 2 days and within 24 h (2.8 % vs 0.6 % vs 0.7 %; p < 0.001). Patients who were operated on after 48 h exhibited an increased risk of any complication (OR 4.72, 95 % CI 1.49-16.6, p = 0.010) on multivariable models. CONCLUSION: Delays in the management of facial fractures are associated with more in-hospital complications. However, the incidence of short-term postoperative complications remains low. Injury characteristics are the primary predictor of delays in operation, however Hispanic patients independently experienced delays in care.

Forehead Flap Practices: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons.

Background: The paramedian forehead flap (PMFF) is a well-established technique utilized for reconstruction of complex nasal defects. Objective: To identify the different techniques and management of patients undergoing PMFF reconstruction and compare these with current literature. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery were sent a practice survey highlighting various nuances in PMFF reconstruction. The survey included questions about flap design, operative techniques, and perioperative care. Results: In total, 172 responses were received (14% response rate). Mean years of practice after fellowship was 15.8 years with most respondents performing either 1-5 (33.1%) or 6-10 (27.3%) PMFFs per year. Common practices included the use of general anesthesia, elevation of PMFF in the subgaleal plane (59.6%), and pedicle division at 3 weeks (80%) (p < 0.001). Complication rates ranged between 1% and 5%. The nose was the most common site for revision (p < 0.001) and the average number of secondary procedures after forehead flap division was 1.1 (standard deviation 0.81). The most variability in responses was seen for methods of internal lining reconstruction. Conclusion: Reconstructive surgeons frequently divide the PMFF pedicle at 3 weeks or later and have variable approaches to reconstruction of the internal lining with low complication rates overall.

Open Preservation Rhinoplasty.

Preservation of native nasal structures in rhinoplasty has aesthetic and functional benefits. This ideology can be implemented within open surgical approaches and in the context of structural modifications of the nose, particularly the nasal tip (structural preservation). In addition, modifications of preservation techniques and hybrid approaches to the osseocartilaginous vault have resulted in expanded indications for preservation of the nasal dorsum. These modifications and indications, as well as septal management in preservation cases, are discussed here in the context of an open approach. Importantly, patient-reported measures suggest that both preservation and structural approaches can yield excellent outcomes. An understanding and integration of both techniques offer great versatility for the rhinoplasty surgeon.

State of the Evidence for Preservation Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review.

Preservation rhinoplasty encompasses a number of techniques that minimize disruption of the native cartilaginous and soft tissue nasal architecture. These techniques have gained popularity resulting in an increase in publications relevant to preservation rhinoplasty. However, many studies that present patient outcomes are of low-level evidence and do not incorporate validated patient-reported outcome measures. While these studies do consistently report positive outcomes, there are few high-level comparative studies that support the theoretical benefits of preservation relative to structural rhinoplasty. As contemporary preservation rhinoplasty techniques will continue to evolve and become incorporated into clinical practice, there will be the need for parallel emphasis on robust clinical studies to delineate the value of these methods.

State of the Evidence for Facial Skin Cancer Reconstruction.

This review provides a comprehensive presentation of the evidence available in facial reconstruction post-Mohs micrographic surgery. Given the large diversity in post-Mohs reconstruction, there are limited guidelines in the management of defects. The aim of the present work is to provide a review of the best evidence as it pertains to several considerations in facial reconstruction. Data suggests that Mohs micrographic surgery and many reconstructive procedures can be performed as outpatient procedures under local anesthesia, with narcotic pain medication only given in certain patient populations following a minority of reconstructive procedures. Perioperative and topical antibiotics are generally not indicated. Aspirin and warfarin can generally be continued for most reconstructive procedures, but clopidogrel and novel anticoagulants may predispose to increased bleeding complications. Delayed reconstruction appears to be safe, although data are discordant on this topic. No specific wound closure technique or suture choice appears to be consistently superior. Given the lack of robust comparative studies, consistent methodology, and variable defect sizes/locations, no robust evidence-based guidelines can be generated for reconstruction techniques of facial subsites.

Normative Values of the Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale.

Background: The Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (NOSE) scale is widely used by clinicians in evaluation of nasal airway obstruction (NAO). Objective: To determine normative values for the NOSE scale among both symptomatic and asymptomatic members of the general U.S. population. Methods: A survey of NAO symptoms in adults of age 18 years and older was performed. The distribution of NOSE scores among the general population was estimated. Influence of features including age, gender, race, location, and symptomatology on NOSE scores was evaluated. Results: Surveys were completed by 2333 participants. Mean NOSE score was 11 (standard deviation [SD] 11) in the asymptomatic, and 28 (SD 22) in the symptomatic population (p < 0.0001). Increasing age was associated with an increase in scores until 45 years, after which it was associated with decreasing scores. No significant differences were found related to other investigated demographics. Conclusions: Normative ranges for the NOSE scale are established, and are largely consistent with values in the existing literature. NOSE scores do not appear to be influenced by gender, race, or geography, although age should be considered in their interpretation.

Matched Cohort Comparison of Dorsal Preservation and Conventional Hump Resection Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Structural preservation techniques (SPR) minimize disruption of the dorsal aesthetic lines, with potential aesthetic and functional benefits over conventional hump resection techniques (CHR). The goal of this study is to compare patient reported outcomes between these techniques. METHODS: This study was a retrospective matched cohort analysis of patients undergoing rhinoplasty with dorsal hump reduction using patient-reported outcomes measures: Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (obstructive: SCHNOS-O, cosmetic: SCHNOS-C) and visual analog scale (functional: VAS-F, cosmetic: VAS-C). A cohort of patients undergoing SPR were matched to a cohort undergoing CHR based on age, gender, and preoperative SCHNOS scores. Intraoperative techniques and patient-reported outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the dorsal height between groups. While radix grafting was more common in SPR, dorsal onlay grafting and midvault reconstructive techniques (e.g. autospreader flaps) were more common in CHR. Within both groups, post-operative SCHNOS and VAS improved significantly at short- and long-term follow-up. There were no differences between SCHNOS or VAS scores preoperatively. Post-operative SCHNOS-O and SCHNOS-C scores were similar between groups at both short-term and long-term follow-up. Post-operative VAS-F scores were not different; however, VAS-C scores at short-term follow-up were statistically greater in the SPR group compared to the CHR group (8.92 vs 8.20, p = 0.03). At long-term follow-up, the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: While there are theoretical functional and aesthetic benefits of SPR techniques, the patient reported benefits may be minimal when compared to CHR techniques with appropriate midvault reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Chemodenervation of the Posterior Belly of the Digastric Muscle in Facial Synkinesis.

Background: Patients with facial synkinesis may have jaw tightness and swallow discomfort despite chemodenervation of facial mimetic musculature, and the posterior belly of the digastric (PBD) muscle is a logical target to treat these symptoms. Learning/Study Objective: To compare patient-reported outcomes of botulinum toxin (BT) chemodenervation of the posterior belly of digastric muscle in patients with postparalytic facial synkinesis. Design Type: Retrospective review. Methods: Patients with facial synkinesis who underwent electromyography (EMG)-guided PBD BT chemodenervation in addition to their baseline therapeutic regimen were included. Pre- and post-treatment Synkinesis Assessment Questionnaires (SAQ) and a two-question survey regarding jaw tightness and swallow discomfort were administered. Results: Twenty-nine patients were included. An average of 5 U of BT-A was injected into the PBD, and 46.5 U across all facial muscles. From pre- to post-injection, patients demonstrated improvement in jaw tightness at rest (3.02 vs. 1.98/5.0, p < 0.001), with swallow (2.78 vs. 1.94/5.0, p < 0.001), and total SAQ (64.3 vs. 51.2/100, p < 0.001). Patients rated subjective benefit from PBD injection compared with prior treatments without PBD injection as 4.5/5.0. Conclusion: Synkinesis patients with jaw tightness or swallow discomfort may benefit from the addition of PBD injections to the therapeutic regimen.

Overview of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty.

Renewed interest in dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) stems from theoretic esthetic and functional advantages over conventional hump resection. DPR fundamentally consists of en bloc dorsal lowering via a combined septal resection and mobilization of the bony pyramid. Several technical modifications exist, allowing for the expansion of DPR indications. Although studies suggest success with these techniques, comparative data to conventional hump resection are limited. Challenges and stigmata of DPR include a radix step-off, hump recurrence, supratip saddling, and widening of the midvault. The fusion of structural techniques with preservation ideology will facilitate the incorporation of DPR into clinical practice.

The Safety and Efficacy of Spreader Grafts and Autospreaders in Rhinoplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the evidence of surgical outcomes and complications of spreader grafts and autospreader flaps in the context of middle vault reconstruction after dorsal hump removal. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) framework. Medline (via PubMed), EMBASE, Cinahl, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for Clinical and observational studies published in peer-reviewed academic journals with abstracts available that reported rhinoplasty employing either spreader graft or autospreader flap techniques and were published prior to March, 2021. RESULTS: Fifty-two of 1129 relevant studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Thirty-four studies (65.4%) were related to spreader graft (SG), 10 (21.1%) studies of autospreader flap (AF) alone and 8 (13.5%) studies involving both grafts. Meta-analysis was performed on 17 studies reporting change in NOSE scores, with pooled effect of - 23.9 (95% CI, - 26.7 to - 21.1) points. High heterogeneity with I2 = 99%. Summary data showed no differences between groups, AF group versus no graft (p = 0.7578), AF versus SF group (p = 0.9948), and SG group versus no graft (p = 0.6608). CONCLUSION: Based on available data, change in NOSE scores after rhinoplasty was similar in procedures that used spreader graft only or autospreader flap only. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Combining Open Structural and Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty.

There has been a resurgence in dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) caused by theoretic aesthetic and functional advantages compared with conventional hump takedown rhinoplasty. Classically, the push-down and let-down maneuvers have been described for management of the bony nasal vault. There have been a variety of modifications in the septal resection that is a requisite for dorsal lowering in DPR. Partial dorsal preservation techniques, including cartilage-only preservation, have also been described. Although several studies have reported aesthetic and functional success with a variety of techniques, few have used objective or patient-centered subjective measures.

Comparison of the Distribution of Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey Scores Between Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Patients.

Background: The Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS) is a validated patient-reported outcome measure that evaluates subjective cosmetic and functional complaints. The goal of this study was to compare scores between patients with and without nasal complaints. Methods: This is a retrospective review of SCHNOS-O (obstructive) and SCHNOS-C (cosmetic) scores in patients presenting for functional or cosmetic concerns between 2019 and 2020. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the score that best separated symptomatic from asymptomatic patients. SCHNOS scores were also subdivided to define severity of presenting complaints. Results: In total, 414 patients were included. A SCHNOS-O score of 40 differentiated patients with and without nasal obstruction. Patients may be categorized as having mild (<40), moderate (45-70), and severe (75-100) nasal obstruction based on the SCHNOS-O score. A score of 30 on the SCHNOS-C differentiated patients with and without aesthetic concerns. Patients may be categorized as having mild (<33.3), moderate (33.3-66.6), and severe (>66.6) aesthetic distress based on the SCHNOS-C. Conclusion: An understanding of SCHNOS scores that differentiate symptomatic for asymptomatic patients can aid in the preoperative evaluation of rhinoplasty patients.

Global Practice Patterns of Dorsal Preservation Rhinoplasty.

Background: Dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) has recently received significant academic attention in part due to theoretical benefits over excisional surgical methods. The purpose of this study was to assess the global practice patterns regarding this technique. Materials and Methods: An 11-item questionnaire was electronically distributed to regional academies/societies representing rhinoplasty surgeons worldwide. Respondent exposure to and use of DPR were assessed based on geographic location. Results: Eight hundred thirty-six responses were received. Despite early publications on DPR originating largely from Western Europe and the United States, Turkey and Mexico have the greatest use of DPR techniques currently. The familiarity across many regions with preservation techniques appear to be secondary to courses and conferences rather than incorporation into training. Mexico demonstrates the greatest exposure to DPR during training. One hundred twenty-five respondents had previously used but abandoned dorsal preservation techniques. Poor results, less predictability, and complications (largely hump recurrence) are cited as common reasons for this. Conclusion: There is variability in the global practice of DPR across regions and this will likely continue to evolve.

Preservation Rhinoplasty: Evolution and Current State of Practice in the United States.

Classic Joseph hump reduction techniques have been a hallmark of current rhinoplasty practice and teaching. Recently, there has been a renewed global interest in preservation rhinoplasty techniques, although these techniques are not new. The work and techniques of innovative surgeons including Goodale, Lothrop, and Cottle describing preservation concepts from the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century were not as prevalently adopted as open structural approaches. As such, there has been a relative paucity in both research and teaching of preservation techniques-particularly in the United States. A survey of members of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery and The Rhinoplasty Society (145 respondents) demonstrates that while 15 (10%) of surgeons are not at all familiar with dorsal preservation surgery, 130 (90%) were. In the group that was familiar with dorsal preservation, the majority were only somewhat familiar (84, 65%) with these techniques. Only 11 respondents received any formal training in dorsal preservation techniques during residency or fellowship. 61 (42%) had attended a course or conference in which dorsal preservation techniques were discussed. One-hundred twenty-two survey respondents (84.1%) do not currently implement preservation techniques into their rhinoplasty practice. Twelve (8%) respondents implement it in <25% of cases, 5 (3%) in 25 to 50% of cases, and 6 (4%) in >50% of cases. As research and formal training in preservation rhinoplasty grow, familiarity and implementation of these techniques will likely also grow in the United States.