A Systematic Review on the Implementation and Educational Value of Resident Aesthetic Clinics.

BACKGROUND: Resident aesthetic clinics (RACs) provide plastic surgery residents with hands-on aesthetic surgery training. Although RACs have demonstrated successful surgical outcomes without compromising patient care, few studies have evaluated the efficacy or educational value of RACs to increase resident confidence and competence in procedures. In addition, clinic structures vary widely among institutions, with each clinic offering a unique patient volume, caseload, and degree of resident autonomy that impacts the clinic's educational value. This systematic review identifies existing RAC practices, compares clinic structures, and proposes a curriculum framework to maximize educational value for residents. METHODS: Following PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review of plastic surgery residency training program RACs. We queried PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from January 2000 to April 2020. Eligible articles were original articles that discussed RAC structure and educational value. Data abstracted included details on clinic structure (eg, volume, location, cost, clinic operations) and trainee-perceived educational value (eg, resident satisfaction, resident confidence in procedures). RESULTS: Of 1199 identified publications, 10 met the inclusion criteria: 6 single-site studies and 4 national survey studies. Among the single-site studies, annual volumes ranged from 22 to 68 patients/year and 35 to 81 cases/year. Resident aesthetic clinics were all staffed by full-time academic faculty (100%); one-third also were staffed by adjunct faculty and 17% also by community plastic surgeons. Resident involvement varied by hours in clinic and degree of autonomy. The survey studies found that RACs increase resident confidence and competence in performing aesthetic procedures and identified critical challenges to RAC implementation (eg, financial viability, continuity of care) that limited RAC educational value. Based on this review's findings, we propose a 6-step RAC curriculum framework for training programs seeking to establish an RAC and maximize the clinic's educational value. CONCLUSIONS: Resident aesthetic clinics are increasingly important for providing plastic surgery residents with aesthetic training. Patient and case volume, degree of resident autonomy, and clinic attending physicians are critical determinants of the educational value of RACs. We hope our findings can aid plastic surgery training programs in better organizing educational and sustainable RACs.

Outcomes of Immediate versus Delayed Autologous Reconstruction in the Setting of Post-Mastectomy Radiation Therapy: A Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Post-mastectomy autologous breast reconstruction can be immediate (IBR) or delayed (DBR). The safety of performing IBR and the impact of radiation on the newly reconstructed breast is not yet validated. METHODS: A Pubmed, EMBASE, and Google scholar search was conducted from inception to September 17th 2023. We included comparative studies that assessed complications or aesthetic outcomes of IBR versus DBR in the setting of post-mastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT). RESULTS: The search identified 2693 articles. Thirteen were eligible for inclusion. A total of 565 patients underwent IBR followed by radiotherapy while 699 had DBR. Mean follow-up time and age for both groups were comparable (p > 0.1). None of revision surgery, infection, total flap failure, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, or delayed wound healing was significantly different across groups (p > 0.1). IBR was found to have a higher risk of flap fibrosis (OR 28.18 [5.15 - 154.12]; p = 0.0001, I 2 of 44%) and skin flap necrosis (OR 6.12 [2.71 - 13.82]; p < 0.0001, I 2 of 27%) but a lower risk of partial flap failure (OR 0.18 [0.06 - 0.58]; p 0.004, I 2 of 0%) when compared to DBR. Results of fat necrosis should be interpreted with caution. Patient-reported as well as objective aesthetic outcomes were mostly comparable between groups. CONCLUSION: IBR in the setting of PMRT is increasingly being performed and poses a specific set of challenges that surgeons usually consider. The choice between IBR or DBR in the setting of PMRT should be an individualized decision based on patient risk factors and desires. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Association of preoperative opioid use and postoperative complications following breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in orthopedics and general surgery have linked negative patient outcomes with preoperative opioid use. In this study, we investigated the association of preoperative opioid use on breast reconstruction outcomes and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: We reviewed our prospective registry of patients who underwent breast reconstruction for documented preoperative opioid use. Postoperative complications were recorded at 60 days after the first reconstructive surgery and 60 days after the final staged reconstruction. We used a logistic regression model to assess the association between opioid use and postoperative complications, controlling for smoking, age, laterality, BMI, comorbidities, radiation, and previous breast surgery; linear regression to analyze RAND36 scores to evaluate the impact of preoperative opioid use on postoperative QoL, controlling for the same factors; and Pearson chi-squared test to assess factors that may be associated with opioid use. RESULTS: Of the 354 patients eligible for inclusion, 29 (8.2%) were prescribed preoperative opioids. There were no differences in opioid use by race, BMI, comorbidities, previous breast surgery, or laterality. Preoperative opioids were associated with increased odds of postoperative complications within 60 days after the first reconstructive surgery (OR: 6.28; 95% CI: 1.69-23.4; p = 0.006) and within 60 days after the final staged reconstruction (OR: 8.38; 95% CI: 1.17-59.4; p = 0.03). Among patients using opioids preoperatively, the RAND36 physical and mental scores decreased but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We found that preoperative opioid use is associated with increased odds of postoperative complications among patients who underwent breast reconstruction and may contribute to clinically significant declines in postoperative QoL.

Reconstructive and restorative cues improve public perception on the value of plastic and reconstructive surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Persistent public misconceptions of plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS), ambiguity between cosmetic versus reconstructive surgical procedures, and subjective interpretation of aesthetics can result in undervaluing of the field. Our study analyzes how patient context (cosmetic or reconstructive/restorative cues) affect public perception of outcomes and value of surgery. METHODS: We distributed Qualtrics™ surveys to laypersons via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Demographics were self-reported. The survey presented a series of pre- and post-operative photographs of PRS surgeries alongside either a cosmetic or reconstructive/restorative cue, followed by questions on values of procedure. Survey responses were analyzed using two-tailed Student's t tests and chi square analyses, univariate and multivariate analysis, and linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 459 respondents, the mean age was 38.5 ± 12.1 years, and was 50.5% (232) male. The majority of respondents classified breast reconstruction as a cosmetic surgery (243, 66.8%), and was rated more attractive (p < 0.0005), higher impact on self-esteem (p < 0.001), and to be covered by health insurance (p < 0.0001) compared to breast augmentation. Reconstructive cued breast and facial procedures were viewed more favorably; the exception was gynecomastia reduction. Reconstructive classification had significant positive correlation with support for insurance coverage (R2 = 0.8268) and willingness to pursue (R2 = 0.5328). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed more public support for reconstructive/restorative cued PRS cases over cosmetic cued PRS cases, and persistent misconceptions of breast reconstruction as a cosmetic procedure. Reconstructive or restorative cues can be used to educate the public and address skewed perceptions on the roles and value of PRS.

Using Pressure Mapping to Optimize Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury Prevention Strategies in the Burn Intensive Care Unit.

Although prior studies have demonstrated the utility of real-time pressure mapping devices in preventing pressure ulcers, there has been little investigation of their efficacy in burn intensive care unit (BICU) patients, who are at especially high risk for these hospital-acquired injuries. This study retrospectively reviewed clinical records of BICU patients to investigate the utility of pressure mapping data in determining the incidence, predictors, and associated costs of hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs). Of 122 patients, 57 (47%) were studied prior to implementation of pressure mapping and 65 (53%) were studied after implementation. The HAPI rate was 18% prior to implementation of pressure monitoring, which declined to 8% postimplementation (chi square: P = .10). HAPIs were less likely to be stage 3 or worse in the postimplementation cohort (P < .0001). On multivariable-adjusted regression accounting for known predictors of HAPIs in burn patients, having had at least 12 hours of sustained pressure loading in one area significantly increased odds of developing a pressure injury in that area (odds ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.0-1.5, P = .04). Patients who developed HAPIs were significantly more likely to have had unsuccessful repositioning efforts in comparison to those who did not (P = .02). Finally, implementation of pressure mapping resulted in significant cost savings-$6750 (standard deviation: $1008) for HAPI-related care prior to implementation, vs $3800 (standard deviation: $923) after implementation, P = .008. In conclusion, the use of real-time pressure mapping decreased the morbidity and costs associated with HAPIs in BICU patients.

Complications and Patient-reported Outcomes after TRAM and DIEP Flaps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps are the most common abdominally based breast reconstruction procedures. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages; however, how morbidity relates to satisfaction is not well-understood. Our aim was to compare complications and patient-reported outcomes following pedicled TRAM (pTRAM), free TRAM (fTRAM), and DIEP flaps to guide flap selection. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted, and 2 independent reviewers identified comparative studies of abdominally based flaps. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, complications, and patient-reported outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects modeling with the DerSimonian and Laird method. RESULTS: The search retrieved 5090 articles, of which 18 were included in this review. pTRAM flaps trended toward a higher risk of abdominal bulge/hernia compared with DIEP flaps, particularly in low-volume hospitals. While fTRAM flaps had a higher risk of abdominal morbidity compared with DIEP flaps, relative risk decreased when obese patients were excluded and when only muscle-sparing fTRAM flaps were compared. Muscle-sparing flaps had a higher risk of flap loss than fTRAM flaps. Compared with DIEP flaps, pTRAM flaps were associated with lower general satisfaction but comparable emotional well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that safety and satisfaction following abdominally based breast reconstruction depend on flap type and patient characteristics. When possible, DIEP or muscle-sparing fTRAM flaps should be performed for obese patients to decrease the risk of abdominal bulge/hernia. Although pTRAM flaps are associated with a greater risk of flap loss, they are still an appropriate option when microsurgery is not available.