International, prospective cohort study comparing non-absorbable versus absorbable sutures for skin surgery: CANVAS service evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Absorbable or non-absorbable sutures can be used for superficial skin closure following excisional skin surgery. There is no consensus among clinicians nor high-quality evidence supporting the choice of suture. The aim of the present study was to determine current suture use and complications at 30 days after excisional skin surgery. METHODS: An international, prospective service evaluation of adults undergoing excision of skin lesions (benign and malignant) in primary and secondary care was conducted from 1 September 2020 to 15 April 2021. Routine patient data collected by UK and Australasian collaborator networks were uploaded to REDCap©. Choice of suture and risk of complications were modelled using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Some 3494 patients (4066 excisions) were included; 3246 (92.9 per cent) were from the UK and Ireland. Most patients were men (1945, 55.7 per cent), Caucasian (2849, 81.5 per cent) and aged 75-84 years (965, 27.6 per cent). The most common clinical diagnosis was basal cell carcinoma (1712, 42.1 per cent). Dermatologists performed most procedures, with 1803 excisions (44.3 per cent) on 1657 patients (47.4 per cent). Most defects were closed primarily (2856, 81.9 per cent), and there was equipoise in regard to use of absorbable (2127, 57.7 per cent) or non-absorbable (1558, 42.2 per cent) sutures for superficial closure. The most common complications were surgical-site infection (103, 2.9 per cent) and delayed wound healing (77, 2.2 per cent). In multivariable analysis, use of absorbable suture type was associated with increased patient age, geographical location (UK and Ireland), and surgeon specialty (oral and maxillofacial surgery and plastic surgery), but not with complications. CONCLUSION: There was equipoise in suture use, and no association between suture type and complications. Definitive evidence from randomized trials is needed.

Tip Droop Prevention in Rhinoplasty: Dynamic Effect of Strut Graft on Smiling versus Depressor Muscle Release.

BACKGROUND: Aesthetic rhinoplasty is one of the most challenging procedures performed by aesthetic surgeons. Tip droop, especially on smiling, may not be noted by the surgeon postoperatively but can be concerning to patients. Our aim was to determine if the division of the depressor septi nasi or its combination with a columellar strut graft during rhinoplasty produce a measurable reduction in nasal tip droop on smiling. METHODS: A retrospective casenote and photograph review was conducted on patients who had undergone aesthetic endonasal rhinoplasty, performed by a single surgeon between 2015 and 2019. In total, 29 patients had release of the depressor septi nasi muscle, whilst 11 had release of the muscle along with a strut graft. Lateral smiling photographs were taken postoperatively. Tip droop was measured as a variation of the nasolabial angle from rest to smiling using the Frankfurt line. RESULTS: Photographs were taken at a mean of 14 months postoperatively. In the group who had muscle release only, a mean increase in nasolabial angle of 3.66 degrees was seen when smiling when compared with rest. In the group who had muscle release combined with strut graft, a mean increase of 2.27 degrees was seen. When using a columellar strut along with muscle release, tip droop on smiling was reduced. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that columellar strut grafting in combination with muscle release can alleviate drooping of the tip better than muscle division alone after rhinoplasty. The columellar strut graft provides tip stability and can therefore be used to enhance dynamic outcomes after rhinoplasty.

Cusp repair during aortic valve-sparing operation: technical aspects and impact on results.

AIMS: Aortic valve-sparing operations are nowadays considered safe and reliable procedures in terms of mid-term and long-term results. Although surgical techniques regarding the modality of grafts' implantation have been properly addressed, the modality of cusp repair, when needed, is still open to debate. We sought to review the literature to try to shed light on when the cusp repair is required and how it should be performed. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database using the keywords aortic valve-sparing operation, aortic valve-sparing reimplantation, valve-sparing aortic root replacement, aortic valve repair, and aortic cusp repair. Only studies that included and described in detail the technique of cusp repairs in adjunct to aortic valve-sparing operation were considered. RESULTS: Bicuspid aortic valve more often requires correction when compared with tricuspid valve. The range of the techniques varies from the 'simple' free margin plication to the more complex triangular resection with patch repair. Results in the literature seem to be encouraging, showing that, in most of the cases, cusp repair does not affect valve competence in the mid-term and long-term. CONCLUSION: Correction of the cusp is a delicate balance between undercorrection that could lead to residual prolapse and overcorrection that could lead to cusp restriction. Although complex repair of the aortic valve in addition to root replacement provided satisfactory results, it should be reserved for experienced centers with a large volume of patients.

Reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement for aortic root aneurysm in the elderly: are we pushing the limits?

OBJECTIVES: Reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement has been increasingly performed with improving perioperative and midterm results. However, extending the age criterion in patient selection remains a debate. This study reviews the results of reimplantation valve-sparing aortic replacement in patients greater than 60 years of age. METHODS: During a 51-month period, 63 patients with aortic root aneurysms underwent reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement. The Gelweave Valsalva prosthesis (TERUMO CardioVascular Systems Corp., Ann Arbor, MI, USA) was used in all but one case. The patients were predominantly male, and the mean age was 67 years (range, 61-83 years). Four patients had congenital bicuspid aortic valves, and cusp repair was required in one patient. The mean follow-up was 25 months (range, 1-51 months). RESULTS: There were one hospital and two late deaths. Overall survival at 51 months was 84 +/- 9.9%. During follow-up, one patient developed severe aortic incompetence (AI) requiring an aortic valve replacement (AVR). Freedom from reoperation at 51 months was 92.8 +/- 6.8%. Moderate AI was present at latest echocardiogram in one patient. Freedom from moderate or severe AI at 51 months was 90 +/- 9.4%. There was no episode of endocarditis on follow-up. Univariate analysis demonstrated that no preoperative or intraoperative factor was a predictor for late reimplantation failure. CONCLUSIONS: Reimplantation valve-sparing aortic root replacement in patients greater than 60 years old can be performed with satisfactory perioperative and midterm results. Long-term results are needed to define the durability of this technique and its role in this subset of patients.