Background Postoperative free tissue transfer reexploration procedures are relatively infrequent but associated with increased overall failure rates. This study examines the differences between flaps requiring takeback versus no takeback, as well as trends in reexploration techniques that may increase the odds of successful salvage. Methods A retrospective review was conducted on all free tissue transfers performed at our institution from 2011 to 2022. Patients who underwent flap reexploration within 30 days of the original procedure were compared with a randomly selected control group who underwent free flap procedures without reexploration (1:2 cases to controls). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. Results From 1,213 free tissue transfers performed in the study period, 187 patients were included in the analysis. Of the total flaps performed, 62 (0.05%) required takeback, and 125 were randomly selected as a control group. Free flap indication, flap type, reconstruction location, and number of venous anastomoses differed significantly between the two groups. Among the reexplored flaps, 8 (4.3% of the total) had a subsequent failure while 54 (87.10%) were salvaged, with significant differences in cause of initial flap failure, affected vessel type, and salvage technique. Conclusion Free tissue transfers least prone to reexploration involved breast reconstruction in patients without predisposition to hypercoagulability or reconstruction history. When takeback operations were required, salvage was more likely in those without microvascular compromise or with an isolated venous injury who required a single exploratory operation.

Background: Plastic surgery interest groups (PSIGs) provide an invaluable opportunity to enhance medical students' exposure to and knowledge of plastic surgery. Despite this, there have been no studies that provide information on the formation of these groups as well as the aspects that make for a productive PSIG. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed by email via RedCAP to US medical students who hold leadership positions within their medical school's PSIG. Participants were asked baseline medical school information, the structure of their interest group, and perspectives on the most impactful and challenging components of their interest group. Results: Sixteen members (27.6%) of PSIG leadership completed the survey. Eighty percent reported having a membership of greater than 20 students. Fifty percent of the PSIGs were led by advisors who were medical school or hospital-affiliated faculty. Sixty-nine percent of groups were allocated a predetermined amount of money to fund activities and events throughout the academic year. Based on member feedback, groups reported that interactions with plastic surgery faculty, mentorship opportunities, and research opportunities were the most impactful and beneficial components of their PSIG. Forty-four percent reported that the biggest challenge faced by their PSIG was having a small active member group, followed by a lack of funding. Conclusion: Our study provides an in-depth look at the current structure and impact of PSIGs in the United States. It also provides a framework for medical schools that wish to start a PSIG and suggestions for established groups who wish to revitalize their PSIG structure.

BACKGROUND:Patients consider many factors when selecting a plastic surgeon. Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of board certification and reputation in this decision. Despite this, there is a paucity of knowledge on the role that cost of procedure, social media, and surgeon training have on the decision-making process.METHODS:The authors' study used a population-based survey administered by Amazon Mechanical Turk. Adults 18 years and older and residing in the United States were asked to rank the importance of 36 factors from 0 (least important) to 10 (most important) when selecting a plastic surgeon.RESULTS:A total of 369 responses were analyzed. The mean age of respondents was 36.9 years (SD, 10.9 years), and 174 participants (47.2%) were female. Of those surveyed, 216 (55.0%) had previously undergone plastic surgery, and all respondents were considering plastic surgery either at the time of survey or in the future. The most common first step for respondents in identifying a plastic surgeon was a web-based search (32.2%). The top three most important factors in selecting a plastic surgeon were surgeon's experience with the desired procedure (7.48), surgeon's board certification (7.38), and surgeon's years in practice (7.36). The three least important factors were the surgeon's race (5.43), number of social media posts (5.62), and television appearances (5.64).CONCLUSIONS:The authors' survey provides insight into the role that different elements play in the decision of selecting a plastic surgeon in the United States. Understanding how patients select a plastic surgeon can help surgeons optimize these elements in their practices.

BACKGROUND:Following the reopening of elective surgery, the authors' division transitioned from inpatient admission to same-day discharge for immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction in an effort to decrease the hospital's clinical burden and minimize potential coronavirus disease of 2019 exposure. This study aims to compare complication rates following this acute transition for patients who had inpatient and outpatient mastectomy with immediate alloplastic reconstruction.METHODS:A retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate prosthetic reconstruction. The outcome of interest was 30-day morbidity. Descriptive statistics were compared for patients with outpatient and inpatient operations. Odds ratios were calculated to determine whether any preoperative factors increased odds of 30-day complications.RESULTS:A total of 115 patients were included in this study. Twenty-six patients had outpatient surgery and 89 stayed inpatient postoperatively. Same-day discharge did not significantly impact the odds of having one or more 30-day complications (OR, 0.275; 95% CI, 0.047 to 1.618; P = 0.153). Patients with complications had significantly longer median operating times [5.0 hours (interquartile range, 4.0 to 6.0 hours) versus 4.0 hours (interquartile range, 3.0 to 5.0 hours; P = 0.05), and there was a statistically significant association between length of surgery and odds of complication (OR, 1.596; 95% CI, 1.039 to 2.451; P = 0.033). Age was independently associated with increased risk of 30-day complication (OR, 1.062; 95% CI, 1.010 to 1.117; P = 0.020).CONCLUSION:The authors' findings support a continuation of same-day discharge strategy, which could decrease costs for patients and hospitals without increasing complications.CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, III.

Background Autologous free-flap breast reconstruction (ABR) is a valuable surgical option for patients following mastectomy. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a myriad of factors that have affected access to care, hospital logistics, and postoperative outcomes. This study aims to identify differences in patient selection, hospital course and severity, and postoperative outcomes for patients who underwent ABR during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods Patients undergoing ABR from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2019 to 2020 database were analyzed to compare sociodemographics, hospital course, and outcomes over the first postoperative month. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors predictive of complications based on the operative year.Results In total, 3,770 breast free flaps were stratified into two groups based on the timing of reconstruction (prepandemic and pandemic groups). Patients with a diagnosis of disseminated cancer were significantly less likely to undergo ABR during the COVID-19 pandemic. On univariate analysis, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications between the two groups. When controlling for potentially confounding sociodemographic and clinical risk factors, the COVID-19 group was significantly more likely to undergo reoperation compared with the prepandemic group ( p < 0.05).Conclusion When comparing outcomes for patients who underwent ABR prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, we found a significant increase in the odds of reoperation for those who had ABR during the pandemic. Debridement procedures and exploration for postoperative hemorrhage, thrombosis, or infection increased in the prepandemic group compared to the COVID-19 group. Notably, operative times decreased.

Background: This study explores factors that encourage residents to apply to independent plastic surgery residencies to gain insight into whether they faced bias as a result of this decision. Methods: Resident applicants who applied to two academic independent plastic surgery residencies in 2021 and 2022 were emailed a survey consisting of 25 questions. Responses were collected anonymously and analyzed. Descriptive statistics were performed, and subgroup analyses were conducted with Fisher exact and Pearson χ 2 testing. Results: Thirty-nine complete responses were included for analysis (response rate 22.7%). Participants were asked what encouraged them to go into plastic surgery during residency. The most common reasons were scrubbing in on plastic surgery cases and interactions with plastic surgery faculty/residents, with each reason cited by 30 respondents (76.8%). Further, 20.5% of residents agreed or strongly agreed that they felt unsupported by their program director in their decision to apply into plastic surgery. Likewise, 64.1% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed to having experienced demeaning comments or jokes by faculty about their choice of plastic surgery. Consequently, 17.9% agreed or strongly agreed that they developed stress or anxiety due to how co-residents and/or faculty treated them regarding their decision to pursue plastic surgery. Conclusions: General surgery residents planning to apply to independent plastic surgery residency may experience workplace biases related to their career decision. An important opportunity exists to support independent applicants and to provide mentorship.

Background: The Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) was introduced as a free and specialty-specific application for plastic surgery applicants in the 2020–2021 cycle. Now in its second year, the PSCA is being piloted by all integrated residency programs with future plans to replace Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) in the 2022–2023 cycle. This study aimed to explore applicant perspectives related to the PSCA and ERAS applications. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to integrated plastic surgery residency applicants from the 2021–2022 application cycle. Participants were asked to provide basic demographic information, their perspectives of the PSCA, and overall application preference. Results: One hundred forty (43.1%) applicants completed the survey. Nearly, 63% of applicants responded “slightly well” or “not well at all” regarding their ability to highlight at least one aspect of their application. Forty-one percent of applicants believed ERAS best highlighted the strengths of their application compared with 27% who believed their strengths were better highlighted by the PSCA. Seventy-nine percent reported the cost savings associated with the PSCA were “very” or “extremely important.” Overall, 63% of respondents reported a preference to apply with the PSCA alone. Conclusions: This is the first study to provide insight on applicants' perspectives of the PSCA. Although the majority preferred applying with the PSCA, there may be challenges with transitioning to this application solely. Future iterations of the PSCA may aim to ameliorate functionality concerns, optimize application content, and incorporate plastic surgery-specific information that may be important to selection committees.

Background: The US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 change to pass/fail has been met with mixed reviews, and the impact on medical student education and residency match is unknown. We surveyed medical school student affairs deans regarding their thoughts on the upcoming transition of Step 1 to pass/fail. Methods: A questionnaire was emailed to medical school deans. Deans were asked to rank the importance of the following after the Step 1 reporting change: Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (Step 2 CK), clerkship grades, letters of recommendation, personal statement, medical school reputation, class rank, Medical Student Performance Evaluation, and research. They were asked how the score change will affect curriculum, learning, diversity, and student mental health. Deans were asked to select 5 specialties they thought would be most affected. Results: Regarding perceived importance of residency applications following the scoring change, the most frequent number 1 choice was Step 2 CK. The majority of deans (93.5%, n = 43) felt that the change to pass/fail would benefit medical student education/learning environment; however, most (68.2%, n = 30) did not believe their school curriculum would change. Students applying to dermatology, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, ENT, and plastic surgery were felt to be most affected by the scoring change; 58.7% (n = 27) felt it would not adequately address future diversity. Conclusion: The majority of deans feel the USMLE Step 1 change to pass/fail would benefit medical student education. Deans feel that students applying to traditionally more competitive specialties (ie, programs with fewer overall residency positions available) will be most affected.

Background: Little information exists on the perceptions of integrated plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residency applicants on the need for having social media (SoMe) during the application process. Methods: A cross-sectional survey study was conducted during the 2022 match cycle to assess integrated PRS residency applicants’ perceptions on the role of SoMe during the match. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed on variables of interest. Qualitative analysis was conducted on free-form responses. Results: Seventy-nine surveys were completed (response rate: 24%). The majority of respondents were educated in the United States (92%). Instagram was the most commonly used SoMe platform (92%). Of those surveyed, 18% thought that SoMe was beneficial to the application process. Twenty-nine percent of respondents agreed that a SoMe presence increases one’s chances of matching into PRS residency (41% disagreed and 30% responded neutrally). Forty-four percent endorsed stress about maintaining a SoMe presence in PRS. Having mentors who recommended maintaining a SoMe presence was associated with the belief that SoMe increases one’s chances of matching [odds ratio (OR) 8.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–40.4, P = 0.011] and stress about maintaining a SoMe presence (OR 6.3, 95% CI 1.2–33.3, P = 0.030). Applicants who did research years had lower odds of experiencing stress (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04–0.70, P = 0.015). Conclusions: The growing role of SoMe in the residency selection process may be exacerbating applicants’ stress and anxiety. PRS programs may consider establishing clear policies for how SoMe will be used in evaluating candidates.

Background: Free tissue transfer is a valuable surgical option for the reconstruction of a myriad of complex lower extremity defects. Currently, there is a paucity of data that examines the risks of complications for each of these unique indications. Methods: Patients undergoing lower extremity free flap reconstruction from the ACS-NSQIP 2011–2019 database were stratified into groups based on the etiology and indication for reconstruction. Rates of major, surgical wound, and medical complications were compared over the first post-operative month. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify complication predictors. Results: 425 lower extremity free flaps were analyzed. The most common indications for lower extremity free flap reconstruction were wound-related (29%), malignancy (21%), and trauma (17%). Seventeen percent of free flaps had a major post-operative complication, 9% had a surgical wound complication, and 16% had a medical complication. There were no significant differences in major complications between the indications. However, the independent risk factors for major complications varied widely. Those with an indication of malignancy and those who received a musculocutaneous free flap were significantly more likely to have a surgical wound complication compared to the remaining cohort ( p < 0.05). Those requiring free flap reconstruction for orthopedic hardware related concerns as well as those with wound related indications were significantly more likely to have a post-operative medical complication ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: Understanding the unique risk profiles between the various indications and populations of patients undergoing lower extremity free flap reconstruction is critical for providing accurate risk estimations and optimizing post-operative outcomes and monitoring.

This study presents a novel surgical model developed to provide hematological support for implanted cellularized devices augmenting or replacing liver tissue function. Advances in bioengineering provide tools and materials to create living tissue replacements designed to restore that lost to disease, trauma, or congenital deformity. Such substitutes are often assembled and matured in vitro and need an immediate blood supply upon implantation, necessitating the development of supporting protocols. Animal translational models are required for continued development of engineered structures before clinical implementation, with rodent models often playing an essential early role. Our long-term goal has been generation of living tissue to provide liver function, utilizing advances in additive manufacturing technology to create 3D structures with intrinsic micron to millimeter scale channels modeled on natural vasculature. The surgical protocol developed enables testing various design iterations in vivo by anastomosis to the host rat vasculature. Lobation of rodent liver facilitates partial hepatectomy and repurposing the remaining vasculature to support implanted engineered tissue. Removal of the left lateral lobe exposes the underlying hepatic vasculature and can create space for a device. A shunt is created from the left portal vein to the left hepatic vein by cannulating each with separate silicone tubing. The device is then integrated into the shunt by connecting its inflow and outflow ports to the tubing and reestablishing blood flow. Sustained anticoagulation is maintained with an implanted osmotic pump. In our studies, animals were freely mobile after implantation; devices remained patent while maintaining blood flow through their millifluidic channels. This vascular anastomosis model has been greatly refined during the process of performing over 200 implantation procedures. We anticipate that the model described herein will find utility in developing preclinical translational protocols for evaluation of engineered liver tissue. Impact statement Tissue and organ transplantation are often the best clinically effective treatments for a variety of human ailments. However, the availability of suitable donor organs remains a critical problem. Advances in biotechnology hold potential in alleviating shortages, yet further work is required to surgically integrate large engineered tissues to host vasculature. Improved animal models such as the one described are valuable tools to support continued development and evaluation of novel therapies.

Veeramani, Anamika BS; Xun, Helen MD; Comer, Carly D. MD; Lee, Bernard T. MD, MBA, MPH, FACS; Lin, Samuel J. MD, MBA, FACS Author Information

This study aimed to investigate the impact of performing neurotization during breast reconstruction on total operating time and post-operative morbidity. The 2015 through 2019 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) databases were utilized to identify patients who underwent breast reconstruction with and without neurotization. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, operative characteristics and outcomes were examined for each group. Thirty-day complication and readmission rates were compared using univariable and multivariable logistic regressions. Of 73,507 patients identified who underwent breast reconstruction, 240 had reconstruction with neurotization. Autologous reconstruction was more prevalent for patients with neurotization (90.8% vs. 18.5%, p<.001). Average operating time was longer when neurotization was performed during both autologous (527.1 +/- 152.4 vs. 414.8 +/- 186.3, p<.001) and alloplastic-only reconstruction (310.9 +/- 115.9 vs. 173.0 +/- 94.3, p<.001). The likelihood total operating time exceeded 521 min (two standard deviations above average) increased when neurotization was performed (OR 2.464, CI 1.864-3.255, p<.001). Thirty-day complications occurred in 13.8% of patients with neurotization and 6.8% without (p<.001). Similarly, 30-day readmission rates were higher for patients with neurotization (7.5% vs. 4.2%, p<.001). However, when adjusted for comorbidities and operative characteristics, neurotization did not significantly impact 30-day complication rates (OR 0.802, CI 0.548-1.174, p=.256) or 30-day readmission rates (OR 1.352, CI 0.822-2.223, p=.077). Although neurotization during breast reconstruction increases operating time, comorbidities and procedural characteristics play a greater role in post-operative outcomes than neurotization alone.

BACKGROUND Recent advances in ultrasound technology have further increased its potential for routine use by plastic and reconstructive surgeons. METHODS An extensive literature review was performed to determine the most common applications of ultrasound in the postoperative care of plastic and reconstructive surgery patients. RESULTS In contrast with other available imaging modalities, ultrasound is cost-effective, rapid to obtain, eliminates the need for ionizing radiation or intravenous contrast, and has virtually no contraindications. In addition to its diagnostic capabilities, ultrasound can also be used to facilitate treatment of common postoperative concerns conveniently at the bedside or in an office setting. CONCLUSION This article presents a review of the current applications of ultrasound imaging in the postoperative care of plastic and reconstructive surgery patients, including free flap monitoring following microsurgery, diagnosis and treatment of hematoma and seroma, including those associated with BIA-ALCL, and breast implant surveillance.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of potential complications and motivations among patients willing to travel internationally for cosmetic surgery and to gain insight into public perceptions of cosmetic surgery tourism by surveying a large, cross-sectional sample of the general public. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed through Amazon Mechanical Turk regarding cosmetic surgery tourism in adults 18 years and older and currently residing in the United States (US). Results: A total of 484 responses were analyzed. Of those, 45.2% of participants would consider having plastic surgery. Among these participants, 67.1% would consider traveling outside of the US to receive cosmetic surgery. Participants who reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had increased odds of considering surgery abroad (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-8.7, P = .030). Participants reported that the top advantages of traveling outside of the US for surgery were the price of surgery internationally, a shorter waiting list for surgery, and privacy during recovery. The top disadvantages were the risk of complications, lack of follow-up or continuity care after surgery, and distance from home. Although the risk of complications was acknowledged as the top disadvantage, the perceived safety of receiving plastic surgery abroad was not related to willingness to consider having surgery abroad (P = .268). Conclusion: These findings support the need for continued awareness of patients considering international travel for cosmetic surgery and increased education of the general public regarding the safety of cosmetic surgery tourism and the importance of selecting board-certified plastic surgeons and accredited facilities.

Introduction:Retired plastic surgeons can provide valuable insights for the greater plastic surgery community. The purpose of this study was to gather demographics, personal reflections, and advice for a career in plastic surgery from retired American plastic surgeons.Methods:An email survey was distributed to 825 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons during September 2021. The survey distribution was designed to engage members of the plastic surgery community, who were retired from surgical practice in the United States. The form consisted of 29 questions, five of which were free response. Descriptive statistical analyses were performed.Results:A total of 214 completed surveys were received, with a response rate of 25.9%. The average age at retirement was 67.6 years. The majority of respondents were men (87.6%) and White (93.3%); 46.9% of surgeons practiced at individual private practice. Ninety percent of surgeons indicated that they would choose to practice as a plastic surgeon again. Free responses provided positive career reflections and advice for young plastic surgeons regarding navigating the changing landscape of healthcare.Conclusions:Retired plastic surgeons are interested in engaging with the plastic surgery community and demonstrate continued interest in the future of the field. Efforts can be made to avail the field of their expertise and experience.

PURPOSE: Guidelines for optimal breast cancer treatment are updated frequently in response to the latest evidence from clinical trials. Radiation therapy is a cornerstone of multimodal breast cancer treatment after lumpectomy and also plays a role in treatment for select patients after total mastectomy. Radiation therapy is known to impact skin quality, therefore special consideration should be taken when caring for patients with post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) seeking breast reconstruction. The aim of this study was to analyze annual trends in PMRT at our institution over the past decade to better elucidate its implications for patients seeking subsequent breast reconstruction. METHOD: All patients who underwent total mastectomies between 2011 and 2021 were identified through our institutional Clinical Data Repository utilizing Current Procedural Terminology codes. A retrospective chart review was carried out for each patient identified. Demographic information, comorbidities, breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, breast reconstruction method, and complications were compared between patients with and without PMRT. Additionally, radiation dose and timing were evaluated for patients who had radiation. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were utilized to compare differences between categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Of 452 patients who underwent mastectomy between 2011 and 2021, 133 (29.4%) had PMRT. The proportion of patients undergoing PMRT varied yearly, with no clear trend over time (p = 0.016). However, a higher proportion of patients received PMRT in more recent years (40.2% in 2020, 35.7% in 2021). Most patients (126/133) received adjuvant radiation. Mean Radiation dose to the chest wall and lymph nodes were 4867 cGy and 4133 cGy, respectively. A greater proportion of patients who underwent PMRT had T-stage T2 or greater (63.2% vs. 23.1%, p <0.001), N-stage N1 or greater (73.7% vs. 14.9%, p<0.001), and axillary lymph node dissection (59.4% vs. 16.8%, p <0.001). A greater proportion of patients with PMRT underwent breast reconstruction (49.6% vs. 39.9%, p = 0.044). Of those patients who had breast reconstruction, the most common method was tissue expander to implant reconstruction (no radiation: 67.5%, PMRT: 51.5%), followed by staged tissue expander to autologous reconstruction (no radiation: 11.9%, PMRT: 28.8%), p = 0.001. A greater proportion of patients with PMRT experienced postoperative complications (40.6% vs. 26.9%, p = 0.004); specifically, reoperation within 30 days of mastectomy (8.3% vs. 4.1%, p = 0.07), reoperation after 30 days of mastectomy (13.5% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.003), skin necrosis (3.8% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.014), and poor cosmetic outcome (3.8% vs. 1.3%, p - 0.082). CONCLUSION: Differences exist in the disease extent, classification, and outcomes for patients with and without radiation. Surprisingly, a greater proportion of patients with PMRT chose to undergo breast reconstruction. In this cohort of patients, we observed increased rates of complications including reoperation, skin necrosis, and poor cosmetic outcomes for patients with PMRT. An individualized approach and careful planning are essential for optimizing outcomes for this patient population.

Background: Significant improvements in sensory recovery after innervated breast reconstruction have been reported. However, surgical approaches and sensory testing methods have been widely variable. This systematic review aimed to synthesize neurotization techniques and outcomes in breast reconstruction surgery. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify all studies reporting outcomes of neurotization in innervated breast reconstruction. Data extracted from each study included neurotization techniques, operative times, sensory methods and outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: A total of 1,350 articles were identified, and 23 articles were included for analysis. Nerve coaptation was performed in 536 breasts and 419 patients, with techniques consisting of direct coaptation (65.1% of flaps), coaptation with nerve conduit (26.3%), and coaptation with nerve allograft (8.6%). The neural component of operating time ranged from 8 to 38 min, and the pooled neurotization success rate among nine studies that reported this outcome was 90.6% (95% CI: 83.6%-96.0%). Overall, innervated breasts achieved earlier and superior sensory recovery that was more uniformly distributed throughout the flap compared to non-innervated breasts. Despite high heterogeneity between studies, all included studies supported neurotized breast reconstruction to improve the rate, quality, and magnitude of sensory recovery. Conclusions: Neurotization during breast reconstruction may be worth the investment of additional operating time to increase the prospect of high-quality sensory recovery. Further investigation with standardized sensory testing methods and patient-reported outcome tools is needed to definitively support neurotization as a standard of care in breast reconstruction surgery. (c) 2022 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.