Adding Depth to Cephalometric Analysis: Comparing Two- and Three-Dimensional Angular Cephalometric Measurements.

INTRODUCTION: Lateral cephalometric radiographs (LCR) have been the standard tool used for cephalometric analysis in craniofacial surgery. Over the past decade, a three-dimensional (3D) revolution in cephalometric analysis and surgical planning has been underway. To date, research has not validated whether cephalometric measurements taken from two-dimensional (2D) and 3D data sources are equivalent and interchangeable. The authors sought to compare angular cephalometric measurements taken with 2D and 3D modalities. METHODS: Sixty-two head CT scans (36 females, 26 males) with an average age of 63 ±â€Š20 years were studied. Twelve cephalometric angular measurements were taken from 3D reconstructed skulls using the software package Mimics 19.0 (Materialize; Leuven, Belgium). These same facial angles were measured from 2D lateral cephalograms reconstructed from the original CT scans using Dolphin 11.9. Measurements taken with both techniques were compared for agreement using a paired t test. Intra-class correlation coefficient assessment was used to determine inter-rater reliability. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. RESULTS: Five of the 12 angular measurements (SNA, SNB, MP-FH, U1-SN, and U1-L1) demonstrated statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) between the 2D and 3D analyses. All of these differences were less than the standard deviations for the respective measure. CONCLUSION: The differences between angular cephalometric values obtained from 2D LCRs and 3D CT reconstructions are small. This supports the practices of using 2D and 3D cephalometric data interchangeably in most applications. Clinicians must be selective in which measures they employ to maximize accuracy and care must be taken when measuring dental inclination with lateral cephalograms.

Outcomes in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap and Implant-Based Reconstruction: Does Age Really Matter?

Despite the growing elderly population, there is limited research specific to this demographic concerning breast reconstruction (BR). Lack of evidence-based BR recommendations in older populations may contribute to misconceptions and subsequent underutilization of BR, especially autologous BR. Patients who received either deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap BR or tissue expander/implant (TE/I) BR by a single surgeon between July 2011 and July 2015 were surveyed postoperatively by using the psychometrically validated BREAST-Q questionnaire to determine patient satisfaction. Patients were categorized into younger and older cohorts based on median age (55 years) and further stratified based on the type of reconstruction. Of the 311 patients surveyed, 95 patients responded (31% response rate). Overall, younger patients (<55 years old, n = 42) compared with older patients (≥55 years old, n = 53) had significantly higher satisfaction with their outcome (mean difference [MD] 12.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96-23.15; P = 0.034). In the TE/I group (n = 58), younger patients had significantly higher satisfaction with breasts (MD: 14.17; 95% CI: 2.58-25.75; P = .017) and outcome (MD: 18.25; 95% CI: 3.95-32.5; P = .010) with fewer complications (odds ratio [OR]: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.37-7.86; P = .010). In the DIEP flap group (n = 55), there was no significant difference inr any of the satisfaction outcomes between younger and older patients. Younger patients tend to be more satisfied and demonstrate fewer complications with implant-based BR. In contrast, both younger and older patients undergoing abdominally based autologous BR were equally satisfied with comparable outcomes.

Unilateral Versus Bilateral Breast Reconstruction: Is Less Really More?

OBJECTIVE: Over the recent years, there has been an increase in prophylactic mastectomies with an associated increase in bilateral breast reconstruction. We aimed to compare outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction with unilateral versus bilateral breast reconstruction after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap and implant-based reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent breast reconstruction by a single surgeon between July 2011 and July 2015 were surveyed using the independently validated BREAST-Q questionnaire. Mean satisfaction scores between patients undergoing unilateral versus bilateral breast reconstruction were compared and stratified based on the type of reconstruction [eg, DIEP flap, tissue expander to implant (TE/I)]. Groups were further categorized by age (patients <55 years and ≥55 years of age) and body mass index (<24.9 and >24.9). Complications were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 308 patients included, 118 (38%) had unilateral reconstruction (42 TE/I and 76 DIEP) and 190 (62%) had bilateral reconstruction (124 TE/I and 66 DIEP). A total of 95 patient surveys were included (31% response rate). Overall, patients receiving unilateral reconstruction demonstrated increased satisfaction with outcome (P = 0.028), psychosocial well-being (P = 0.043), and sexual well-being (P = 0.002). Complication rates were similar between unilateral and bilateral reconstruction. No significant differences for satisfaction were found in the TE/I group (N = 58; unilateral, 10; bilateral, 48).In the DIEP group (N = 37; unilateral, 20; bilateral, 17), those receiving unilateral reconstruction had higher satisfaction with outcome (P = 0.013) and sexual well-being (P = 0.014).Additionally, younger patients (<55 years) were more likely to undergo bilateral reconstruction (P = 0.018). Body mass index did not have a significant association with unilateral or bilateral reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing DIEP flap reconstruction showed higher satisfaction with unilateral reconstruction, whereas patients receiving TE/I reconstruction, either unilateral or bilateral, were equally satisified. Additionally, younger women were more likely to undergo bilateral reconstruction, which is consistent with current data trends. When considering surgical options, unilateral DIEP flap reconstruction may provide improved outcomes in terms of patient satisfaction when compared with bilateral reconstruction in select patients.

Estrogen treatment of acetic acid burns to the vagina, cervix, and perineum: a case report and review of the literature.

In colposcopic evaluation of the cervix, acetic acid of 3 to 5% is commonly used for identification of preneoplastic and neoplastic cells. Acetic acid is a known caustic substance and has the potential to cause irritation and chemical burns when there is sufficient concentration or duration of contact. The authors present a unique case of a woman who inadvertently received undiluted acetic acid during a routine colposcopy, resulting in significant chemical burns of the vagina, cervix, and perineum. Her burns were treated with topical estrogen cream of 1 g twice daily applied directly to the wounds. The burn wounds were fully healed within 8 weeks without complication or additional treatment. At 6 months after the injury, the patient was allowed to engage in sexual activity, and vaginal dilation and pelvic floor therapy were initiated. At 12 months postinjury, her only symptomatic scarring at the left vaginal wall continues to improve. Thus, topical estrogen treatment of 1 g applied twice daily should be continued until burn scar maturation is complete and treatment improvement plateaus in cases of burns to the vagina, cervix, and perineum. This case is further clinical evidence of estrogen's positive effect on wound healing and its potential role in burn treatment.