Patients with cleft lip and cleft palate (CLCP) require multiple interventions for structural and functional deficits. Revision palatoplasty may be performed during childhood for velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), while alveolar bone grafting (ABG) is performed during mixed dentition to stabilize the maxillary arch and close oronasal fistulas. This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of combining revision palatoplasty with ABG. A retrospective review was conducted of pediatric patients with CLCP who underwent ABG and/or revision palatoplasty at an academic children's hospital (2017-2024). Data included demographics, surgical indications, operative characteristics, and outcomes. Patients were grouped by procedure: ABG alone, revision palatoplasty alone (Palate), and combined ABG + Palate. Bone graft success was confirmed by imaging ≥ 6 months postoperatively. Revision outcomes were assessed via speech-language pathology (VPI improvement) and clinician evaluation (fistula closure). Among 180 patients included, 100 (55.6%) underwent ABG alone, 66 (36.7%) underwent Palate alone, and 14 (7.8%) underwent ABG + Palate. Grafting methods and success rates were similar between the ABG and ABG + Palate groups. The ABG + Palate group had a higher age at VPI diagnosis compared with the Palate group (8 versus 5 y, P = 0.02) but similar time to revision (4 mo). Both Palate and ABG + Palate groups showed comparable VPI improvement (83.7% versus 88.9) and fistula closure rates (92.3% versus 100%), with speech improvement from moderate to mild hypernasality. Combining revision palatoplasty with ABG is safe and effective, potentially minimizing the number of surgeries in this complex patient population.

INTRODUCTION:Pain after the alveolar bone graft (ABG) procedure can be difficult to manage. The goal of this study is to assess the described outpatient ABG protocol by comparing outcomes between pain catheters and local nerve blocks. METHODS:A retrospective single-institution review was conducted on patients with autologous iliac crest bone grafts (ICBGs). At the donor site, patients either receive on-Q continuous ropivacaine pain catheters or a local nerve block. Various outcomes such as postoperative pain medications used, postoperative pain scores, length of stay (LOS), and complications were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS:Of the 79 patients that met our inclusion criteria, 60 (75.9%) received pain catheters and 19 (24.1%) received nerve blocks. Postoperative use of opioids and nonopioid medications such as acetaminophen and ibuprofen was similar between the 2 groups. The nerve block group reported a lower median pain score postoperatively than patients who received a pain catheter (5.0 versus 1.0, P =0.008). The overall complication rate was 2 (3.3%) for the pain catheter group due to pump failure and zero for the nerve block group. CONCLUSION:Pain catheters and local nerve blocks are both safe methods of local anesthesia with low complication rates. However, pain catheters create concern for leakage or pump failure and a higher burden of care for patients and families. In addition, patients with nerve blocks report lower pain scores. As such, we have gradually shifted our practice toward the use of nerve blocks for an improved patient experience.

BACKGROUND:YouTube is a platform for many topics, including plastic surgery. Previous studies have shown poor educational value in YouTube videos of plastic surgery procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality and accuracy of YouTube videos concerning gynecomastia surgery (GS). METHODS:The phrases "gynecomastia surgery" (GS) and "man boobs surgery" (MB) were queried on YouTube. The first 50 videos for each search term were examined. The videos were rated using our novel Gynecomastia Surgery Specific Score to measure gynecomastia-specific information, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to measure understandability and actionability, and the Global Quality Scale to measure general quality. RESULTS:The most common upload source was a board-certified plastic surgeon (35%), and content category was surgery techniques and consultations (51%). Average scores for the Global Quality Scale (x̄ = 2.25), Gynecomastia Surgery Specific Score (x̄ = 3.50), and PEMAT Actionability (x̄ = 44.8%) were low, whereas PEMAT Understandability (x̄ = 77.4%) was moderate to high. There was no difference in all scoring modalities between the GS and MB groups. Internationally uploaded MB videos tended to originate from Asian countries, whereas GS videos tended to originate from non-US Western countries. Patient uploaders had higher PEMAT Actionability scores than plastic surgeon uploaders. CONCLUSIONS:The quality and amount of gynecomastia-specific information in GS videos on YouTube are low and contain few practical, take-home points for patients. However, understandability is adequate. Plastic surgeons and professional societies should strive to create high-quality medical media on platforms such as YouTube.

Background Free flap (FF) reconstruction is frequently required for soft-tissue coverage after significant orthopaedic trauma of the lower extremity (LE). While usually the final step in limb salvage, re-elevation of the previously inset FF may be necessary to restore a functional limb. In this study, we present our algorithm for LE FF re-elevation and review our experience to identify factors associated with successful limb salvage and return to ambulation. Methods A retrospective, single-institution review was conducted of adult patients with LE wounds who required FF reconstruction from 2016 to 2021. From this cohort, patients who required re-elevation of their LE FF were identified. Successful FF re-elevation was defined by limb salvage and return to ambulation. Results During the study period, 412 patients with LE wounds required flap reconstruction. Of these patients, 205 (49.8%) underwent free tissue transfer, and 39 (9.5%) met our inclusion criteria. From this cohort, 34 had successful FF re-elevation, while 1 was non-weight bearing and 4 were elected for amputation due to chronic complications unrelated to their FF. Univariate analysis revealed the total number of FF re-elevations (p < 0.001), the frequency of re-elevation indicated for orthopaedic access (p < 0.001), and infections necessitating return to the operating room (p = 0.001) were each negatively associated with limb salvage and return to ambulation. Conclusion The described algorithm highlights the preoperative planning and meticulous flap preservation necessary for the successful coverage of critical structures following FF re-elevation. Our data demonstrate that LE FFs can be safely re-elevated for hardware access or flap revision. In these complex cases of LE trauma, management by a multidisciplinary team is essential for successful limb salvage.

Background:Postsurgical pyoderma gangrenosum (PSPG) is a highly uncommon and unpredictable wound healing complication. Rapid progression of ulcers at incisions can cause unfettered dehiscence. Most commonly, PSPG involves breast procedures; however, in this work, we detail a case of a patient who developed PSPG 10 days postoperatively after penile inversion vaginoplasty.Methods:The patient in this case underwent a penile inversion vaginoplasty with orchiectomy in the standard fashion. She had no risk factors for PSPG. Following an uncomplicated hospital stay, the patient developed difficulty with pain control and increasing serous drainage on the 10th postoperative day. On readmission, the patient was found to have developed large, mildly purulent ulcers throughout the perineal wound edges. On exam under anesthesia, the neovaginal canal was found to be patent and intact. The dehisced portions of the incisions were left open and redressed with occlusive bismuth-petrolatum dressing. Dermatology was promptly consulted with suspicion for PSPG. The patient was started on an 18-day prednisone taper with cyclosporine, along with doxycycline and ciprofloxacin.Results:After 5 days of immunosuppressive treatment, the ulcers visibly converted to healthy granulation tissue and were no longer actively purulent. Following another washout, the dehisced wound edges were reapproximated. At follow-up, the patient had no evidence of PSPG recurrence and continued dilating on schedule. Our patient recovered from PSPG without further complications and a satisfactory aesthetic result.Conclusions:This unique case highlights the importance of prompt dermatological consultation, immunosuppression, and avoidance of further pathergy in the setting of suspicion for PSPG.

Background YouTube is a platform for many topics, including plastic surgery. Previous studies have shown poor educational value in YouTube videos of plastic surgery procedures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality and accuracy of YouTube videos concerning gynecomastia surgery (GS). Methods The phrases “gynecomastia surgery” (GS) and “man boobs surgery” (MB) were queried on YouTube. The first 50 videos for each search term were examined. The videos were rated using our novel Gynecomastia Surgery Specific Score to measure gynecomastia-specific information, the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) to measure understandability and actionability, and the Global Quality Scale to measure general quality. Results The most common upload source was a board-certified plastic surgeon (35%), and content category was surgery techniques and consultations (51%). Average scores for the Global Quality Scale (x̄ = 2.25), Gynecomastia Surgery Specific Score (x̄ = 3.50), and PEMAT Actionability (x̄ = 44.8%) were low, whereas PEMAT Understandability (x̄ = 77.4%) was moderate to high. There was no difference in all scoring modalities between the GS and MB groups. Internationally uploaded MB videos tended to originate from Asian countries, whereas GS videos tended to originate from non-US Western countries. Patient uploaders had higher PEMAT Actionability scores than plastic surgeon uploaders. Conclusions The quality and amount of gynecomastia-specific information in GS videos on YouTube are low and contain few practical, take-home points for patients. However, understandability is adequate. Plastic surgeons and professional societies should strive to create high-quality medical media on platforms such as YouTube.

Background Following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) infection and explantation, autologous reconstruction is a common option for patients who desire further reconstruction. However, few data exist about the outcomes of secondary autologous reconstruction (i.e., free flap breast reconstruction) in this population. We hypothesized that autologous reconstruction following infected device explantation is safe and has comparable surgical outcomes to delayed-immediate reconstruction. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent IBR explantation due to infection from 2006 through 2019, followed by secondary autologous reconstruction. The control cohort comprised patients who underwent planned primary delayed-immediate reconstruction (tissue expander followed by autologous flap) in 2018. Results We identified 38 secondary autologous reconstructions after failed primary IBR and 52 primary delayed-immediate reconstructions. Between secondary autologous and delayed-immediate reconstructions, there were no significant differences in overall complications (29 and 37%, respectively, p = 0.45), any breast-related complications (18 and 21%, respectively, p = 0.75), or any major breast-related complications (13 and10%, respectively, p = 0.74). Two flap losses were identified in the secondary autologous reconstruction group while no flap losses were reported in the delayed-immediate reconstruction group ( p = 0.18). Conclusion Autologous reconstruction is a reasonable and safe option for patients who require explantation of an infected prosthetic device. Failure of primary IBR did not confer significantly higher risk of complications after secondary autologous flap reconstruction compared with primary delayed-immediate reconstruction. This information can help plastic surgeons with shared decision-making and counseling for patients who desire reconstruction after infected device removal.

Background:The vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap has emerged as the workhorse flap for perineal and pelvic reconstruction. The authors aimed to evaluate outcomes of the VRAM flap over a 20-year period and the role of mesh abdominal wall reinforcement following VRAM flap-based reconstruction.Methods:The authors conducted a retrospective review of all consecutive patients who underwent pelvic reconstruction with a VRAM flap between January of 2001 and March of 2021. Our primary outcome measure included recipient and donor surgical-site occurrences (SSOs).Results:The authors identified a total of 546 patients (55% women) with a mean age of 58 years and mean body mass index of 27 kg/m2. Mesh was used at the time of VRAM reconstruction to reinforce the abdominal donor site in 36% of patients. Recipient SSOs occurred in 38% of patients, and donor SSOs occurred in 17% of patients. Hernia was identified in 9.9% of patients, and bulge developed in 6.4% of patients. The Cox proportional hazards regression model for hernia occurrence identified age, body mass index, tobacco use (hazard ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.02 to 4.04), and use as an extended VRAM flap (hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.36). The use of mesh or component separation were not independent protective factors for hernia occurrence.Conclusions:The pedicled VRAM flap is versatile and is our preferred flap for reconstruction of pelvic and perineal defects. The use of mesh/component separation to allow for fascial closure was not shown to reduce donor-site hernia occurrence.CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, IV.

The ongoing outbreak of the monkeypox virus (now referred to as “mpox”) was deemed a public health emergency by the World Health Organization in 2022. The United States now reports the highest number of mpox cases, with 29 980 cases and 21 deaths as of January 11, 2023. The most common presenting symptom is a pruritic, vesicular rash that commonly involves the hands. While covering hand call, our division has encountered 2 cases of mpox in the emergency department for which the chief complaint was a hand lesion. Because hand surgeons will be called upon to make an initial diagnosis, the purpose of these case reports is to describe the presentation, disease course, treatment, and outcomes of these mpox patients. These patients had both uncontrolled HIV as well as other sexually transmitted disease. Symptoms included painful vesicular hand lesions with ulceration and eventual central necrosis, followed by similar lesions on the face, trunk, and genital area. Diagnosis was made using nucleic acid amplification testing through polymerase chain reaction. The patients were treated with restoration of immunity through control of HIV as well as treatment of all secondary bacterial infections. One patient died in the hospital, and the other survived without any long-term defects.

INTRODUCTION:Secondary alveolar bone grafting (ABG) is a common procedure performed at cleft care centers used to fill the alveolar cleft. The advent of techniques such as minimally invasive trephine drill harvest and placement of continuous-infusion pain pumps at the donor site has made outpatient ABG an increasingly feasible and cost-effective procedure. However, enhanced recovery after surgery protocols to maximize pain control and recovery times for this patient population have not been well established. METHODS:A retrospective single-institution review was conducted of pediatric patients with cleft palate who underwent iliac crest bone graft ABG at a large urban academic children's hospital from 2017 to 2022. Patient age, alveolar cleft repair laterality, pain scores, surgery duration, hospital LOS, readmissions, and re-operations within 30 days were examined. RESULTS:Fifty-four patients met our inclusion criteria. Fifty patients (92.6%) received a pain pump during the operation. The median duration of surgery and LOS in the post-anesthesia care unit were 1.28 and 1.75 hours, respectively. Fifty-two patients (96.3%) were discharged on the same day as their surgery whereas 2 patients (3.7%) stayed in the hospital overnight. The median pain score at the time of discharge was 0 (interquartile range 0, 0). There were 6 (11.1%) minor complications including 5 pain pump malfunctions and 1 recipient site wound breakdown. There was 1 readmission (1.9%) for development of a surgical site infection at the hip and no re-operations within 30 days of surgery. CONCLUSION:The described outpatient ABG protocol demonstrates effective postoperative pain control, short hospital LOS, and few complications requiring hospital readmission or reoperation.

Background Machine learning has been increasingly used for surgical outcome prediction, yet applications in head and neck reconstruction are not well-described. In this study, we developed and evaluated the performance of ML algorithms in predicting postoperative complications in head and neck free-flap reconstruction. Methods We conducted a comprehensive review of patients who underwent microvascular head and neck reconstruction between January 2005 and December 2018. Data were used to develop and evaluate nine supervised ML algorithms in predicting overall complications, major recipient-site complication, and total flap loss. Results We identified 4000 patients who met inclusion criteria. Overall, 33.7% of patients experienced a complication, 26.5% experienced a major recipient-site complication, and 1.7% suffered total flap loss. The k -nearest neighbors algorithm demonstrated the best overall performance for predicting any complication (AUROC = 0.61, sensitivity = 0.60). Regularized regression had the best performance for predicting major recipient-site complications (AUROC = 0.68, sensitivity = 0.66), and decision trees were the best predictors of total flap loss (AUROC = 0.66, sensitivity = 0.50). Conclusions ML accurately identified patients at risk of experiencing postsurgical complications, including total flap loss. Predictions from ML models may provide insight in the perioperative setting and facilitate shared decision making.

Background: Given the competition in the integrated plastic surgery Match, away rotations are ubiquitous among plastic surgery applicants to differentiate their applications. This study aimed to characterize how performing an away rotation affects rank order and Match outcomes for integrated plastic surgery programs. Methods: An online survey was designed and distributed to the top 25 integrated plastic surgery programs in the United States as determined by Doximity. Programs were polled about away rotation structure, position of rotators on their 2018 to 2019 rank list, and composition of current resident classes. Results: Twenty-five programs completed the survey (response rate, 100 percent). On average, programs interviewed 34.9 applicants (range, 22 to 50 applicants) and ranked 32.8 applicants (range, 10 to 50 applicants). Most “ranked-to-match” positions were occupied by home students or away rotators (60.9 percent). Rank order of home students, away rotators, and nonrotators varied significantly (p < 0.001), with median rank order of home students [5 (interquartile range, 1 to 9)] and rotators [14 (interquartile range, 6 to 27)] higher than nonrotators [17 (interquartile range, 10 to 29)]. Rank orders of away rotators tended to follow a bimodal distribution. Furthermore, 64.4 percent of integrated residents were either a home student or away rotator at their matched integrated program, with 20 percent of residency programs composed of greater than 70 percent of away rotators/home students across postgraduate years 1 through 6 classes. Conclusions: For integrated plastic surgery programs, the majority of ranked-to-match students on rank lists and current residents were either home students or away rotators at their respective program. Performing well on an away rotation appears to confer significant benefit to the applicant applying in the integrated plastic surgery Match.

Background: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction in patients with a history of breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and radiotherapy is challenging, with a paucity of literature on the outcomes of different breast reconstructive techniques. The authors hypothesized that implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) would be associated with higher complication rates compared to either IBR combined with latissimus dorsi (LD) or free flap breast reconstruction (FFBR). Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy with a history of BCS and radiotherapy between January of 2000 and March of 2016. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were compared between IBR versus IBR/LD versus FFBR. Results: The authors identified 9473 patients who underwent BCS and radiotherapy. Ninety-nine patients (105 reconstructions) met the authors’ inclusion criteria, 29% (n = 30) of whom underwent IBR, 26% (n = 27) of whom underwent IBR/LD, and 46% (n = 48) of whom underwent FFBR. The overall complication rate was not significantly different between the three groups (50% in IBR versus 41% in IBR/LD versus 44% in FFBR; P = 0.77), whereas reconstruction failures were significantly lower in the FFBR group (33% in IBR versus 19% in IBR/LD versus 0% in FFBR; P < 0.0001). The time between the receipt of radiotherapy and reconstruction was not a significant predictor of overall complications and reconstruction failure. No significant differences were identified between the three study cohorts in any of the three studied BREAST-Q domains. Conclusions: In patients with prior BCS and radiotherapy, FFBR was associated with lower probability of reconstruction failure compared to IBR but no significant difference in overall and major complication rates. The addition of LD flap to IBR did not translate into lower complication rates but may result in decreased reconstruction failures. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

We read with great interest the article by Drinane et al.1 analyzing the hand surgery case logs of graduating residents from the general surgery, orthopedic surgery, and plastic surgery pathways. We would like to congratulate the authors on an excellent overview of the disparities in experience among the different groups of applicants to hand surgery fellowships. We wish to some offer additional perspective to the authors’ key findings from this study. While case logs of general surgery residents accounted for the majority evaluated in this study (11,189 out of 19,159), it is important to note that general surgery residents represent a small fraction of the total matched hand surgery fellowship applicants. According to data from the 2020 National Resident Matching Program for hand surgery,2 only five out of 175 matched applicants (2.9 percent) came directly from general surgery residencies. These five applicants matched into the one enrolled general surgery–based hand fellowship currently offered.2 This makes us wonder if it is indeed an unwritten clause that general surgery residents interested in hand surgery fellowships need to pursue an independent plastic surgery fellowship first to make themselves competitive for selection to this field. The authors do mention a need for a more standardized hand experience for applicants from different pathways to improve the education of graduating hand surgeons. Is this best achieved by a plastic surgery fellowship following general surgery training, to set up such candidates for success in a 1-year focused fellowship program? Furthermore, while the data for integrated plastic surgery case logs were not publicly available and analyzed, the use of only independent plastic surgery resident case logs limits the determination of the hand surgery experience of graduating plastic surgery residents. Integrated plastic surgery residents pursuing a 6-year residency would possibly accrue greater exposure compared to independent plastic surgery fellows pursuing a 3-year fellowship. Moreover, Bhadkamkar et al.3 demonstrated a strong trend toward the increasing number of positions in the integrated plastic surgery match and a concomitant decrease in independent positions available. From 2007 to 2019, the number of integrated positions has increased from 92 to 172, while the number of independent positions has decreased from 93 to 63.3 General surgery is the most common pathway to an independent plastic surgery residency, but matched applicants to independent plastic surgery programs may have previously completed residencies in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, otolaryngology, thoracic and cardiac surgery, or urology.4 Indeed, a candidate progressing from an orthopedic residency to a plastics fellowship would likely have significantly more hand experience. As such, future studies examining the case logs of integrated plastic surgery residents would add immensely to our understanding of the baseline surgical experience of different applicant cohorts. With these data, hand surgery training can be focused and individualized for these groups in order to maximize the value of their 1-year fellowship. As the authors rightly point out, embracing the differences among the three distinct residency pathways is imperative for offering the best education to future hand surgeons. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.

BACKGROUND:Infection is a dreaded complication of implant-based breast reconstruction. There is a paucity of literature on the outcomes of a secondary reconstruction after infected implant-based breast reconstruction explantation.METHODS:The authors conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent a second implant-based breast reconstruction following a failed infected device between January of 2006 and December of 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were collected and analyzed.RESULTS:A total of 6093 implant-based breast reconstructions were performed during the study period, 298 (5 percent) of which involved device removal because of infection. Eighty-three patients ultimately received 92 second-attempt breast implants. Thirty-six percent of cases developed at least one postoperative complication, with infection [23 breasts (25 percent)] being the most common. Compared with first-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction, we found significantly higher infection rates among second-attempt cases (9 percent and 21 percent, respectively; p = 0.0008). Patient-reported satisfaction with the breast and sexual well-being were lower after second-attempt than after first-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction ( p = 0.018 and p = 0.002, respectively) reported in the literature. Mean follow-up was 41 ± 35 months. If we exclude patients with prior radiation therapy and those who received device exchange, the success rate is 88 percent.CONCLUSIONS:It is reasonable to offer women second-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction after explantation because of infection. However, this patient population has a higher infection and explantation rate and lower patient-reported satisfaction than patients undergoing first-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction. Because of these increased surgical risks and elevated complication rates, patients must be given reasonable expectations during preoperative discussions and when providing informed consent for second-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction.CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Risk, III.

BACKGROUND:Implant-based breast reconstruction infections often require implant explantation. Whereas some plastic surgeons pursue autologous reconstruction following the first implant-based breast reconstruction failure caused by infection, others argue that a second attempt is acceptable.METHODS:The authors conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent a second reconstruction attempt with implant-based or free flap breast reconstruction following explantation because of infection between 2006 and 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes were compared between the two groups.RESULTS:A total of 6093 implant-based breast reconstructions were performed during the study period, of which 130 breasts met our inclusion criteria [implant-based, n = 86 (66 percent); free flap, n = 44 (34 percent)]. No significant differences in rates of overall (25 percent versus 36 percent; p = 0.2) or major (20 percent versus 21 percent; p = 0.95) complications were identified between the free flap and implant-based cohorts, respectively. Implant-based breast reconstruction patients were more likely to experience a second infection (27 percent versus 2 percent; p = 0.0007) and reconstruction failure (21 percent versus 5 percent; p = 0.019). Among irradiated patients, reconstruction failure was reported in 44 percent of the implant-based and 7 percent of the free flap cohorts (p = 0.02). Free flap patients reported significantly higher scores for Satisfaction with Breasts (73.7 ± 20.1 versus 48.5 ± 27.9; p = 0.0046).CONCLUSIONS:Following implant-based breast reconstruction explantation because of infection, implant-based and free flap breast reconstruction had similar rates of overall and major complications; however, implant-based breast reconstruction had considerably higher rates of infection and reconstructive failures and lower patient-reported scores for Satisfaction with Breasts. Given the high rates of implant-based breast reconstruction failure in patients with prior radiotherapy and infection-based failure, plastic surgeons should strongly consider autologous reconstruction in this patient population.CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, III.

ABSTRACT:Humanitarian mission trips have been organized by several residency programs and organizations to cater to surgical care in underdeveloped countries. While there is cross-talk on the existence of such opportunities, there is a paucity of guidance to residents on participation in such trips, their benefits, and the myriad of intangibles to consider while planning to pursue such opportunities. Through this article, the authors highlight the background and utility of humanitarian surgical missions and summarize the clinical and surgical experiences that these trips offer for residents choosing to embark on these altruistic journeys.

Background:. The goal of this study was to assess whether adding a latissimus dorsi (LD) flap to a secondary implant-based reconstruction (IBR) improves outcomes following explantation of the primary device due to infection. Methods:. We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent a second IBR with or without the addition of an LD flap during 2006–2019, following explantation due to infection. Surgical outcomes were collected and compared between reconstruction types. Results:. A total of 6093 IBRs were identified during the study period. Of these, 109 underwent a second attempt at breast reconstruction with IBR alone (n = 86, 79%) or IBR/LD (n = 23, 21%) following explantation of an infected device. Rates of secondary device explantation due to a complication were similar between the two groups (26% in the IBR/LD group and 21% in the IBR group; P = 0.60). Among the patients who underwent prior radiotherapy, the IBR/LD group had lower rates of any complication (38% versus 56%; P = 0.43), infection (25% versus 44%; P = 0.39), and reconstruction failure (25% versus 44%; P = 0.39); however, differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion:. Following a failed primary breast reconstruction due to infection, it may be appropriate to offer a secondary reconstruction. For patients with a history of radiotherapy, combining an LD flap with IBR may provide benefits over IBR alone. Although not statistically different, this outcome may have clinical significance, considering the magnitude of the effect, and may result in decreased complication rates and a higher chance of reconstructive success.

Despite increasing recognition, obesity continues to represent a major health issue for millions of people in the USA and worldwide. There is a paucity in the literature regarding the effect of body mass index (BMI) on microsurgical head and neck reconstruction. The present study hypothesized that high BMI is predictive of postoperative recipient- and donor-site complications with longer operative times. Retrospective review of patients who underwent free flap surgery for head and neck reconstruction was performed between January 2005 and December 2018. Patients were categorized into four groups based on BMI: < 20 kg/m2, 20–30 kg/m2, 30–40 kg/m2, and ≥ 40 kg/m2. Patient characteristics and surgical outcomes were compared between the four groups. Overall, 4000 free flap surgeries were included in the present study, performed on 3753 patients, of whom 9.9% had a BMI < 20 kg/m2, 64.9% had a BMI between 20 and 30 kg/m2, 21.6% had a BMI between 30 and 40 kg/m2, and 3.6% had a BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2. After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariate analysis showed no association between BMI and any complication, major recipient complications, or total flap loss. However, multivariate linear regression model showed BMI 30–40 kg/m2 and BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2 to be independently associated with longer operative times compared with BMI < 20 kg/m2. Obesity and high BMI increase operative times; however, with meticulous surgical technique and diligent postoperative care, microvascular head and neck reconstructions can be performed safely and reliably in the majority of patients regardless of BMI with similar overall, recipient-site, and donor-site complications.