Public Interest in the Off-Label Use of Glucagon-like Peptide 1 Agonists (Ozempic) for Cosmetic Weight Loss: A Google Trends Analysis.

Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) agonists are a drug class used for the treatment of diabetes that have recently gained FDA approval for medical management of obesity. The off-label use of Ozempic (Novo Nordisk, Bagsværd, Denmark), the brand name of the GLP-1 agonist semaglutide, for cosmetic weight loss has been popularized by social media and celebrity influence. The aim of this study was to analyze with Google Trends (Alphabet Inc., Mountain View, CA) the recent search popularity of Ozempic and related GLP-1 agonists. The term "Ozempic" was analyzed with Google Trends. Search popularity was assessed in terms of relative search volume (RSV) over a 5-year period. Changes in RSV were further compared with other GLP-1 agonists, "Wegovy" (Novo NordisK) and "Mounjaro" (Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN). Between March 2018 and February 2023, overall RSV in "Ozempic" grew exponentially in the United States. Simple linear regression analysis showed significantly increased RSV over time with an R2 of 0.915 and a regression coefficient of 0.957 (P < .001). When comparing "Ozempic," "Wegovy," and "Mounjaro" since June 2021 (FDA approval of Wegovy), Ozempic remained at the greatest RSV. One-way analysis of variance found statistically significant differences between the 3 search terms at all time points between December 2021 and February 2023 (P < .001). This study demonstrates a significant and growing public interest in Ozempic and related GLP-1 agonists. As the use of GLP-1 agonists for weight loss becomes more prevalent, plastic surgeons, particularly in the aesthetic setting, must be prepared for the downstream implications. Increased awareness, understanding, and further scientific studies led by plastic surgeons will help deliver the safest possible patient outcomes.

Comparison of Aesthetic Outcomes of Epidermal Staples vs Sutures in Deep Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction.

Background: A secondary benefit of abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction may be improving the abdominal contour; however, poor scaring can lead to aesthetic dissatisfaction and complications. Although studies have demonstrated favorable aesthetic results and decreased operative time using dermal or subcuticular stapling (Insorb), no reports exist regarding epidermal stapling. Objectives: The aim of this study is to compare the aesthetic abdominal scar outcomes, closure time, and postoperative complications of abdominally based breast reconstruction patients who have undergone suture closure vs epidermal staple closure. Methods: A total of 217 patients who underwent abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction from 2011 to 2022 were included and retrospectively analyzed (staples = 41, suture = 176). Twenty-four patients' postoperative abdominal scar photographs were randomly chosen (staples = 12, sutures = 12) and assessed by 3 board-certified plastic surgeons using a modified patient observer scar assessment scale (POSAS) and visual analog scale (VAS). Closure time (minutes per centimeter) using staples or sutures was also analyzed. Results: The assessment of abdominal scars closed by epidermal staples revealed significant improvements in thickness (P = .033), relief (P = .033), surface area (P = .017), overall opinion (P = .033), POSAS score (P = .034), and VAS scar score (P = .023) in comparison with scars closed by sutures. Closing the abdominal wound with staples was significantly faster than closing with sutures (P < .0001). Staple and suture closure had similar postoperative complication rates. Conclusions: Abdominal donor-site scar quality may be superior and faster using the epidermal staple compared to traditional suture closure.

The Incidence of Retained Objects in Intraoperative X-rays for Missing Counts in Plastic Surgery: We Should Do Better.

Background: In the event of incorrect surgical counts, obtaining X-rays to rule out retained surgical items (RSI) is standard practice. However, these safeguards also carry risk. This study investigates the actual incidence of RSI in plastic reconstructive surgery (PRS) cases as measured on intraoperative X-rays and its associated modifiable risk factors. Methods: X-rays with indication of "foreign body" in PRS procedures from 2012 to 2022 were obtained. Reports with "incorrect surgical counts" and associated perioperative records were retrospectively analyzed to determine the incidence of retained surgical items. Results: Among 257 X-rays, 21.4% indicated incorrect counts during PRS operations. None were positive for RSIs. The average number of staff present was 12.01. This correlated to an average of 6.98 staff turnovers. The average case lasted 8.42 hours. X-rays prolonged the time under anesthesia by an average of 24.3 minutes. Free flap surgery had 49.1% prevalence of missing counts (lower extremity 25.5%, breast 20%, craniofacial 3.6%), followed by hand (14.5%), breast (10.9%), abdominal reconstruction (10.9%), craniofacial (9.1%), and cosmetic (5.4%). Conclusions: Although X-rays for incorrect counts intend to prevent catastrophic sequela of inadvertent RSIs, our results suggest the true incidence of RSI in PRS is negligible. However, intraoperative X-rays have potentially detrimental and pervasive consequences for patients, including increased anesthesia time, radiation exposure, and higher overall cost. Addressing modifiable risk factors to minimize unnecessary intraoperative X-rays is imperative while also considering whether this modality is an effective and appropriate tool in PRS procedures with incorrect surgical counts.