Frontal fibrosing alopecia: a retrospective review of 19 patients seen at Duke University.

BACKGROUND: Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) is a type of scarring hair loss primarily observed in postmenopausal women and characterized by fronto-tempero-parietal hairline recession, perifollicular erythema, and loss of eyebrows. The incidence is unknown, but the number of women presenting with this condition has significantly increased in recent years. No effective therapy has been established. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to present pertinent demographic and clinical findings of patients with FFA seen at an academic hair loss clinic and their responses to various therapeutic interventions. METHODS: Patients seen at the Duke University Hair Disorders Research and Treatment Center, Durham, NC, between 2004 and 2011 who met FFA inclusion criteria and signed an informed consent form for participation in the Duke University Hair Disorders Research and Treatment Center database were included in this review. RESULTS: Nineteen female patients with FFA met our inclusion criteria, the majority of whom were white and postmenopausal. A number of treatments, including topical and intralesional steroids, antibiotics, and immunomodulators, were used with disappointing results in most patients. However, the majority of patients on dutasteride experienced disease stabilization. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review and outside clinic records were occasionally incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: FFA is an increasingly common form of scarring hair loss, but the origin remains unknown. Without clear understanding of the pathogenesis and evolution of this condition, it is not surprising that treatments to date have been minimally or not effective. At our institution, dutasteride was most effective in halting disease progression, although no therapy was associated with significant hair regrowth.

The transition from pedicle transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous to perforator flap: what is the cost of opportunity?

PURPOSE: This study evaluates how the transition from pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (pTRAM) to perforator flaps at an academic center has affected outcome and reimbursement. METHODS: In 2006, our practice transitioned to almost exclusively perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. This study retrospectively compares pTRAM flaps performed from 2002 to 2006 (group 1) with perforator flaps from 2006 to 2010 (group 2). Operative time, complications, and reimbursement were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: We performed 93 pTRAM flaps in 69 patients in group 1 and 102 perforator flaps in 69 patients in group 2. Operative time was shorter in group 1 for unilateral breast reconstruction (399 vs. 543 minutes, P = 0.0001), but no significant difference was noted for bilateral cases (547 vs. 658 minutes, P = 0.1). Fat necrosis requiring reoperation (23.7% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.0004) and partial flap necrosis (20.6% vs. 7.2%, P = 0.045) were more frequent in group 1. There was a higher frequency of abdominal hernia (8.8% vs. 1.6%, P = 0.2) but fewer hematomas (1.5% vs. 10%, P = 0.06) in group 1, although statistical significance was not reached between the 2 groups. Mean adjusted payment per case was $3658.67 for group 1 versus $5256.48 for group 2 (P = 0.004), whereas payment per minute was $9.25 for group 1 versus $9.13 for group 2 (P = 0.9). Perforator flaps appear to be as profitable as pTRAM flaps with lower morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The transition from pTRAM to perforator flap can be done successfully with appropriate resources and support. The development of a perforator flap practice represents an opportunity cost in optimizing patient care and should be an option to patients seeking breast reconstruction.

Sickle cell disease and leg ulcers.

Sickle cell disease is a genetic disorder of hemoglobin synthesis leading to a deformation of the red blood cell. This disorder is associated with painful, slow-to-heal leg ulcers. This article discusses the wound bed preparation paradigm as a guide to the treatment of sickle cell-associated leg ulcers.

Once is not enough: withholding postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in prosthetic breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of infection.

BACKGROUND: There has been a trend toward limiting perioperative prophylactic antibiotics, based on research not conducted in plastic surgery patients. The authors' university hospital instituted antibiotic prescribing guidelines based on the Surgical Care Improvement Project. An increased rate of surgical-site infections was noted in breast reconstruction patients. The authors sought to determine whether the change in antibiotic prophylaxis regimen affected rates of surgical-site infections. METHODS: A retrospective study compared patients undergoing breast reconstruction who received preoperative and postoperative prophylactic antibiotics with a group who received only a single dose of preoperative antibiotic. Type of reconstruction and known risk factors for implant infection were noted. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty patients were included: 116 in the pre-Surgical Care Improvement Project group and 134 in the Surgical Care Improvement Project group. The overall rate of surgical-site infections increased from 18.1 percent to 34.3 percent (p = 0.004). Infections requiring reoperation increased from 4.3 percent to 16.4 percent (p = 0.002). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that patients in the Surgical Care Improvement group were 4.74 times more likely to develop a surgical-site infection requiring reoperation (95 percent CI, 1.69 to 13.80). Obesity, history of radiation therapy, and reconstruction with tissue expanders were associated with increased rates of surgical-site infection requiring reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Withholding postoperative prophylactic antibiotics in prosthetic breast reconstruction is associated with an increased risk of surgical-site infection, reoperation, and thus reconstructive failure. The optimal duration of postoperative prophylactic antibiotic use is the subject of future study.