Although antibiotic prophylaxis following rhinoplasty is widespread, the evidence on antibiotic prophylaxis effectiveness and the superiority of particular administration regimens is controversial. To date, a meta-analysis on the topic has not been performed. To systematically review the association between use of preventive antibiotics and postoperative complications in patients undergoing rhinoplasty and quantify the review through meta-analysis. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Central (Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched with prospectively designed search phrases on February 16, 2018. All databases were searched from database inception. Key search terms included rhinoplasty, nasal valve repair, and antibacterial agent. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with adults (≥18 years) undergoing rhinoplasty and including systemic antibiotic medications administered in the absence of other reasons for use of an antibiotic (eg, localized or systemic infection), without restrictions on language or the time of publication, were included in the study. Interventions of interest were classified into 3 types: (1) single-dose systemic antibiotic administered within 24 hours before the first incision, (2) multidose systemic antibiotic treatment started within 24 hours before the first incision and continuing after the operation, and (3) systemic antibiotic therapy (single dose or multidose) started within 24 hours after the first incision. The following comparisons were made: for the interventions of type 1, no antibiotic; for the interventions of types 2 or 3, no antibiotic or an intervention of type 1. Data extraction was compliant with PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of the remaining records at abstract and full-text stages. Meta-analysis pooled with random-effects model. Difference in infectious complication rate between groups. A total of 262 records were identified; of these, only 5 RCTs fulfilled predetermined population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria. The pooled study sample consisted of 589 participants. No significant differences in outcome of preventive antibiotic therapy given either preoperatively or postoperatively were found, with a pooled risk ratio of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.35-2.43; P = .86). This study appears to be the first Cochrane-protocol systematic review and meta-analysis investigating preventive antibiotics in rhinoplasty. This study’s results suggest that pooled evidence from the 5 RCTs does not support the use of preventive antibiotic therapy in rhinoplasty. 1.
JAMA Facial Plastic SurgeryVol. 21, No. 5 Invited CommentaryIs There a Selfie Epidemic?Michael J. Reilly, Keon M. Parsa, and Matthew BielMichael J. ReillyCorresponding Author: Michael J. Reilly, MD, Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, 3800 Reservoir Rd NW, 1st Floor Gorman, Washington, DC 20007 E-mail Address: mjr100@gunet.georgetown.eduDepartment of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DCGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DCSearch for more papers by this author, Keon M. ParsaDepartment of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DCSearch for more papers by this author, and Matthew BielGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DCDepartment of Psychiatry, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DCSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:19 Sep 2019https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2019.0419AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Is There a Selfie Epidemic?." JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(5), pp. 367–368FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byDifferences in Social Perceptions Between Digital Single Lens Reflex Camera and Cell Phone Selfie Images Cherian K. Kandathil, Priyesh N. Patel, Mikhail Saltychev, and Sam P. Most2 October 2020 | Facial Plastic Surgery & Aesthetic Medicine, Vol. 22, No. 5 Volume 21Issue 5Sep 2019 InformationCopyright 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.To cite this article:Michael J. Reilly, Keon M. Parsa, and Matthew Biel.Is There a Selfie Epidemic?.JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery.Sep 2019.367-368.http://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2019.0419Published in Volume: 21 Issue 5: September 19, 2019PDF download
Importance While extracorporeal septoplasty (ECS) and its modifications have been previously studied, to our knowledge, no systematic review of surgical outcomes and complications of this technique has been performed. Objective To evaluate the evidence of surgical outcomes and complications of ECS (including modified techniques) to treat severe L-strut septal deviation defined as deviation within 1.0 cm of the caudal or dorsal septum. Data Sources MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science databases and reference lists were searched from inception to April 2018 for clinical and observational studies. Search terms included extracorporeal, septoplasty, and septum. Study Selection Selection criteria were defined according to the population, intervention, comparison, and outcome framework. Relevant studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers based on abstracts and full texts. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were extracted using standardized lists chosen by the authors according to Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. Data were collected and synthesized with ranges reported, as well as assessment of bias and heterogeneity when applicable. Analysis started in February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes assessed included functional nasal airway improvement by objective measurements and subjective measurements (Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation [NOSE] and visual analog scale scores); complications including bleeding, infection, dorsal irregularities, and other functional or cosmetic deficits; and as revision surgery rates. Results Of 291 records initially obtained, 31 were considered relevant after review according to PRISMA guidelines. All studies except 1 randomized clinical trial (3.2%) were observational in nature, with 21 retrospective studies (67.7%) and 9 prospective studies (29.0%). Conventional ECS was performed in 16 studies (51.6%), and modified ECS was performed in 15 studies (48.4%). The sample size varied from 10 to 567, and the mean age varied from 22.5 to 46 years. Of 31 studies, 14 (45%) were of good methodology. Meta-analysis was performed on 5 studies reporting change in NOSE scores, with pooled effect of -60.0 (95% CI, -67.8 to -52.2) points, but heterogeneity was high, with I2 = 96%. When comparing complications between modified and conventional ECS, the relative risk for infections was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.34-2.7); for bleeding, 0; for nasal dorsal irregularities, 0.29 (95% CI, 0.16-0.53); for other cosmetic complications, 4.3 (95% CI, 0.87-21.1); for other functional complications, 0.47 (95% CI, 0.20-1.1); and for revision operations, 1.4 (95% CI, 0.83-2.3). Conclusions and Relevance Of the 31 studies included in this systematic review, less than half were of good methodology, and a significant level of heterogeneity was found regarding type of outcome measure used and reporting of complications. To improve the level of evidence, better study methodology, standardization of surgical outcomes measures, and reporting of complications are needed.
JAMA Facial Plastic SurgeryVol. 21, No. 1 OpinionFacial Animation Surgery for Long‐standing Facial PalsyOpportunities for Shared Decision MakingKatherine B. Santosa, Alexandra M. Keane, Mary Politi, and Alison K. Snyder‐WarwickKatherine B. SantosaDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.Search for more papers by this author, Alexandra M. KeaneWashington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.Search for more papers by this author, Mary PolitiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.Search for more papers by this author, and Alison K. Snyder‐WarwickCorresponding Author: Alison K. Snyder‐Warwick, MD, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S Euclid Ave, Campus Box 8238, St Louis, MO 63110 E-mail Address: snydera@wustl.eduDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri.Search for more papers by this authorPublished Online:17 Jan 2019https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0930AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Facial Animation Surgery for Long‐standing Facial Palsy." JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(1), pp. 3–4FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 21Issue 1Jan 2019 InformationCopyright 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.To cite this article:Katherine B. Santosa, Alexandra M. Keane, Mary Politi, and Alison K. Snyder‐Warwick.Facial Animation Surgery for Long‐standing Facial Palsy.JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery.Jan 2019.3-4.http://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.0930Published in Volume: 21 Issue 1: January 17, 2019PDF download
JAMA Facial Plastic SurgeryVol. 21, No. 2 JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery Clinical ChallengeNasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure InjuriesAlisa Timashpolsky and Sydney C. ButtsAlisa TimashpolskySearch for more papers by this author and Sydney C. ButtsCorresponding Author: Sydney C. Butts, MD, Division of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology, State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, 450 Clarkson Ave, PO Box 126, Brooklyn, NY 11203 E-mail Address: sydney.butts@downstate.eduSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:21 Mar 2019https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.1643AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Injuries." JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(2), pp. 165–166"Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Injuries." JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(2), pp. 165–166"Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Injuries." JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery, 21(2), pp. 165–166FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 21Issue 2Mar 2019 InformationCopyright 2019 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.To cite this article:Alisa Timashpolsky and Sydney C. Butts.Nasal Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Injuries.JAMA Facial Plastic Surgery.Mar 2019.165-166.http://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2018.1643Published in Volume: 21 Issue 2: March 21, 2019PDF download
