Classification System for Individualized Treatment of Adult Buried Penis Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The authors present their experience with reconstructive strategies for men with various manifestations of adult buried penis syndrome, and propose a comprehensive anatomical classification system and treatment algorithm based on pathologic changes in the penile skin and involvement of neighboring abdominal and/or scrotal components. METHODS: The authors reviewed all patients who underwent reconstruction of adult buried penis syndrome at their referral center between 2007 and 2015. Patients were stratified by location and severity of involved anatomical components. Procedures performed, demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients underwent reconstruction of buried penis at the authors' center from 2007 to 2015. All procedures began with a ventral penile release. If the uncovered penile skin was determined to be viable, a phalloplasty was performed by anchoring penoscrotal skin to the proximal shaft, and the ventral shaft skin defect was closed with scrotal flaps. In more complex patients with circumferential nonviable penile skin, the penile skin was completely excised and replaced with a split-thickness skin graft. Complex patients with severe abdominal lipodystrophy required adjacent tissue transfer. For cases of genital lymphedema, the procedure involved complete excision of the lymphedematous tissue, and primary closure with or without a split-thickness skin graft, also often involving the scrotum. The authors' overall success rate was 88 percent (49 of 56), defined as resolution of symptoms without the need for additional procedures. CONCLUSION: Successful correction of adult buried penis often necessitates an interdisciplinary, multimodal approach. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Lateral Abdominal Wall Defects: The Importance of Anatomy and Technique for a Successful Repair.

Flank and lateral abdominal wall defects can be an extremely challenging phenomenon for surgeons to undertake. Their rarity and specific idiosyncrasies in regard to embryologic and anatomical characteristics must be taken into consideration when formulating an operative plan. We will discuss these cardinal points including technical recommendations by notable experts in the field to gain a better understanding in the diagnosis and treatment of this infrequent but morbid occurrence.

Complex Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Novel Approach to Postoperative Care Using Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal wall defects remain a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Postoperative rehabilitation programs have been used consistently in many surgical subspecialties with exceptional results. Such programs have proven to decrease the total time patients require to resume daily activities. The authors describe a systematic rehabilitation protocol developed with the physical medicine and rehabilitation department that has significantly decreased recurrence rates in patients undergoing complex abdominal wall reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on patients presenting for open repair of an abdominal wall defect performed by a single surgeon. Over a 5-year period, there were 275 consecutive patients divided into two similar groups: one group consisted of 137 patients that received abdominal wall rehabilitation; a second group of 138 patients did not. Patient demographics including body mass index, number of hernia defects, number of previous repairs/abdominal operations, defect size, operative time, blood loss, and postoperative complications including recurrence were collected. RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the abdominal wall rehabilitation program were found to have fewer recurrences at follow-up, with statistical significance compared with those that were not enrolled in the program. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the abdominal wall rehabilitation program has resulted in a decrease in recurrence rates following complex abdominal wall hernia repair and reconstruction. This is an innovative system that uses rehabilitation and physical therapy to enhance the psychosocial and occupational status of patients by improving recurrence rates. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

An Evidence-Based Model for the Successful Treatment of Flank and Lateral Abdominal Wall Hernias.

BACKGROUND: Lateral abdominal wall defects are a significant contributor to patient morbidity and mortality in the United States. Reconstruction involving flank hernias and bulges is relatively scarce in the literature despite its serious consequences. The authors aim to identify an objective approach for the evaluation and successful repair of defects of the lateral abdominal wall. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on patients presenting for open repair of a lateral wall defect performed by a single surgeon. Over a 5-year period, there were 29 consecutive patients with a mean follow-up period of 21.2 months. Patient demographics including body mass index, number of hernia defects, number of previous repairs/abdominal operations, defect size, operative time, blood loss, and complications (e.g., recurrence/bulge, seroma, hematoma, wound infection, persistent pain, skin breakdown, and fascial dehiscence) were collected. RESULTS: Patients who underwent flank hernia repairs using an inlay/underlay nonbridged technique with the use of acellular dermal matrix had low recurrence and overall complication rates. Only one patient (3.4 percent) had a recurrence at follow-up, and another patient (3.4 percent) had developed a bulge. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' data indicate successful results when their technique is applied. Proper patient selection is essential, along with a thorough understanding of anatomy and techniques for successful reconstruction. The authors recommend using an inlay (preferred) or underlay repair with acellular dermal matrix to reinforce the surrounding musculofascial closure. This technique, in conjunction with the authors' holistic abdominal wall reconstruction protocol, has optimized outcomes and identified a successful multidisciplinary strategy for the reconstruction of lateral wall defects. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

The effect of the columellar strut graft on nasal tip position in primary rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: The columellar strut cartilage graft has historically been assumed to be a technique that increases tip projection. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively analyze a series of 100 consecutive rhinoplasty cases by the senior author (R.J.R.) with a specific focus directed toward the effect of the columellar strut on final tip position, namely, tip projection and tip rotation. METHODS: Medical information and digital images were obtained from 100 consecutive primary rhinoplasty patients. All postoperative images were obtained from 1-year or greater follow-up visits. Preoperative and postoperative digital images were compared using a software application that quantitatively analyzed various facial anatomical features, including the nasofrontal angle, the nasolabial angle, tip projection, and tip translation. RESULTS: Tip projection (defined as the tip position on the x axis) actually decreased in 65 percent, increased in 27 percent, and was unchanged in 8 percent of subjects. Tip translation (defined as the tip position on the y axis) was decreased in 59 percent, increased in 34 percent, and unchanged in 7 percent. The nasofrontal angle was increased in 67 percent, decreased in 23 percent, and unchanged in 10 percent of patients. The nasolabial angle was increased in 46 percent, decreased in 34 percent, and unchanged in 20 percent. CONCLUSION: Use of the columellar strut cartilage graft does not necessarily imply an increase in tip projection, but rather serves as a means of unifying the nasal tip and helping to control final tip position.

The role of biologic mesh in abdominal wall reconstruction: a systematic review of the current literature.

BACKGROUND: Biologic mesh in the form of allograft or xenograft products have been used in complicated abdominal hernia repair, but few comparative studies exist. METHODS: A systematic review of original incisional hernia studies was conducted to include 2 primary end points: hernia recurrence and surgical site occurrence. Analysis of variance and a Satterthwaite t test compared the devices. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies were included in this analysis, which included 1,257 patients. The total number of studies and the total subjects for each device include the following: Permacol (Tissue Science Laboratories, Hampshire, UK) (4/64), Surgisis (Cook Medical, Bloomington, IN) (3/87), and Alloderm (LifeCell, Corp, Branchburg, NJ) (23/1,106). Device-specific recurrence rates and surgical site occurrence rates, respectively, were as follows: Alloderm (20.8%, 31.4%), Permacol (10.9%, 25%), and Surgisis (8.0%, 40.2%). A Satterthwaite t test comparison revealed significantly higher numbers of hernia recurrence (P = .006) and surgical site occurrence (P = .04) when comparing Alloderm with Permacol. CONCLUSIONS: Biologic mesh does play a beneficial role in abdominal wall reconstruction although allograft acellular dermal matrix does have a higher recurrence rate as compared with xenograft products, which limits its current role in hernia repair.

Assessment of postoperative venous thromboembolism risk in plastic surgery patients using the 2005 and 2010 Caprini Risk score.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is an important patient safety issue. The authors sought to compare the predictive capacity of the 2005 and 2010 Caprini Risk Assessment Models for perioperative venous thromboembolism risk. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective, observational, crossover study using an established surgical outcomes database. A total of 3334 adult plastic surgery patients were identified. Patients were risk-stratified using both the 2005 and 2010 Caprini Risk Assessment Models. Each patient served as his or her own control, resulting in precise matching for identified and unidentified confounders. The outcome of interest was 60-day, symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The predictive capacities of the 2005 and 2010 Caprini risk scores were compared. RESULTS: Use of the 2010 Caprini Risk Assessment Model resulted in a systematic increase in the aggregate risk score. The median 2010 Caprini score was significantly higher than the median 2005 Caprini score (6 versus 5, p<0.001). When compared with the 2010 model, the 2005 Caprini Risk Assessment Model was able to better separate the lowest and highest risk patients from one another. Patients classified as "super-high" risk (Caprini score>8) using the 2005 Caprini Risk Assessment Model were significantly more likely to have a 60-day venous thromboembolism event when compared with patients classified as super-high risk using the 2010 guidelines (5.85 percent versus 2.52 percent, p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the 2010 Caprini Risk Assessment Model, the 2005 Caprini Risk Assessment Model provides superior risk stratification. The 2005 Caprini Risk Assessment Model is the more appropriate method to risk-stratify plastic surgery patients for perioperative venous thromboembolism risk. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

The effect of postoperative enoxaparin on risk for reoperative hematoma.

BACKGROUND: The risk of postoperative bleeding is the chief concern expressed by plastic surgeons who do not use pharmacologic prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism. The Plastic Surgery Foundation-funded Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Study examined whether receipt of postoperative enoxaparin prophylaxis changed 60-day reoperative hematoma rates. METHODS: In 2009, the study's network sites uniformly adopted a "best practice" clinical protocol to provide postoperative enoxaparin to adult plastic surgery patients at risk for perioperative venous thromboembolism. Historical control patients (2006 to 2008) received no chemoprophylaxis for 60 days after surgery. Retrospective chart review identified demographic and surgery-specific risk factors that potentially contributed to bleeding risk. The primary study outcome was 60-day reoperative hematoma. Stratified analyses examined reoperative hematoma in the overall population and among high-risk patients. Multivariable logistic regression controlled for identified confounders. RESULTS: Complete data were available for 3681 patients (2114 controls and 1567 enoxaparin patients). Overall, postoperative enoxaparin did not change the reoperative hematoma rate when compared with controls (3.38 percent versus 2.65 percent, p = 0.169). Similar results were seen in subgroup analyses for breast reconstruction (5.25 percent versus 4.21 percent, p = 0.737), breast reduction (7.04 percent versus 8.29 percent, p = 0.194), and nonbreast plastic surgery (2.20 percent versus 1.46 percent, p = 0.465). In the regression model, independent predictors of reoperative hematoma included breast surgery, microsurgical procedure, and post-bariatric surgery body contouring. Receipt of postoperative enoxaparin was not an independent predictor (odds ratio, 1.16; 95 percent CI, 0.77 to 1.76). CONCLUSION: Postoperative enoxaparin does not produce a clinically relevant or statistically significant increase in observed rates of reoperative hematoma. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk: II.

The role of the columellar strut in rhinoplasty: indications and rationale.

UNLABELLED: There are a variety of techniques that can be used to enhance or improve the nasal tip. These techniques often use suture techniques and invisible grafts to achieve the desired result. The former methods have been well described throughout the literature. Among the latter techniques, the columellar strut remains a popular and effective form of an invisible graft in rhinoplasty. The purpose of this article is to define the role of the columellar strut graft, describe how to perform it correctly in rhinoplasty, provide a clinical algorithm for its application, and detail a 15-year retrospective analysis of the senior author's (R.J.R.) experience. Previous references to the importance of the columellar strut graft in rhinoplasty have been described; however, none has formally defined its singular importance in both primary and secondary open rhinoplasty. This article details the role of the columellar strut and its relationship to nasal tip projection and lower lateral cartilage symmetry with an explanation of methods for improving each. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Postoperative enoxaparin prevents symptomatic venous thromboembolism in high-risk plastic surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism is a major patient safety issue. The Plastic Surgery Foundation-sponsored Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Study examined whether postoperative enoxaparin prevents symptomatic venous thromboembolism in adult plastic surgery patients. METHODS: In 2009, four sites uniformly adopted a clinical protocol. Patients with a Caprini score of 3 or higher received postoperative enoxaparin prophylaxis for the duration of inpatient stay. Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Study historical control patients had an operation between 2006 and 2008 but received no chemoprophylaxis for 60 days after surgery. The primary study outcome was symptomatic 60-day venous thromboembolism. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred thirty-four patients (1876 controls and 1458 enoxaparin patients) were included. Notable risk reduction was present in patients with a Caprini score greater than 8 (8.54 percent versus 4.07 percent; p=0.182) and a Caprini score of 7 to 8 (2.55 percent versus 1.15 percent; p=0.230) who received postoperative enoxaparin. Logistic regression was limited to highest risk patients (Caprini score≥7) and demonstrated that length of stay greater than or equal to 4 days (adjusted odds ratio, 4.63; p=0.007) and Caprini score greater than 8 (odds ratio, 2.71; p=0.027) were independent predictors of venous thromboembolism. When controlling for length of stay and Caprini score, receipt of postoperative enoxaparin was protective against venous thromboembolism (odds ratio, 0.39; p=0.042). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk plastic surgery patients, postoperative enoxaparin prophylaxis is protective against 60-day venous thromboembolism when controlling for baseline risk and length of stay. Hospitalization for 4 or more days is an independent risk factor for venous thromboembolism. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Validation of the Caprini risk assessment model in plastic and reconstructive surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: The Venous Thromboembolism Prevention Study (VTEPS) Network is a consortium of 5 tertiary referral centers established to examine venous thromboembolism (VTE) in plastic surgery patients. We report our midterm analyses of the study's control group to evaluate the incidence of VTE in patients who receive no chemoprophylaxis, and validate the Caprini Risk Assessment Model (RAM) in plastic surgery patients. STUDY DESIGN: Medical record review was performed at VTEPS centers for all eligible plastic surgery patients between March 2006 and June 2009. Inclusion criteria were Caprini score ≥3, surgery under general anesthesia, and postoperative hospital admission. Patients who received chemoprophylaxis were excluded. Dependent variables included symptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) within the first 60 postoperative days and time to DVT or PE. RESULTS: We identified 1,126 historic control patients. The overall VTE incidence was 1.69%. Approximately 1 in 9 (11.3%) patients with Caprini score >8 had a VTE event. Patients with Caprini score >8 were significantly more likely to develop VTE when compared with patients with Caprini score of 3 to 4 (odds ratio [OR] 20.9, p < 0.001), 5 to 6 (OR 9.9, p < 0.001), or 7 to 8 (OR 4.6, p = 0.015). Among patients with Caprini score 7 to 8 or Caprini score >8, VTE risk was not limited to the immediate postoperative period (postoperative days 1-14). In these high-risk patients, more than 50% of VTE events were diagnosed in the late (days 15-60) postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: The Caprini RAM effectively risk-stratifies plastic and reconstructive surgery patients for VTE risk. Among patients with Caprini score >8, 11.3% have a postoperative VTE when chemoprophylaxis is not provided. In higher risk patients, there was no evidence that VTE risk is limited to the immediate postoperative period.

Anatomy of the auriculotemporal nerve: variations in its relationship to the superficial temporal artery and implications for the treatment of migraine headaches.

BACKGROUND: Clinical experience with surgical decompression of specific peripheral nerves in the head and neck for the relief of migraine headache symptoms has proven to be effective in most patients. Some patients, however, continue to have residual symptoms after these procedures. In an effort to better understand potential etiologies for failure of treatment, an investigation was performed to determine whether or not vascular-mediated peripheral trigger points exist that have heretofore been undescribed that may be contributing to persistent symptomatology. One such potential trigger point is the superficial temporal artery's interaction with the auriculotemporal nerve. A cadaveric investigation was performed to advance this anatomical understanding of this relationship. METHODS: Both sides of 25 fresh cadaveric heads were dissected in the preauricular and temporal regions. The superficial temporal artery and auriculotemporal nerve were identified and dissected both proximally and distally. Their relationship was examined, and a topographical map of their intersections was generated. RESULTS: The auriculotemporal nerve and superficial temporal artery run together in the superficial soft tissue in the preauricular and temple regions. A contiguous relationship between the two was found in 17 hemiheads (34.0 percent). CONCLUSIONS: There are variations in the relationship between the auriculotemporal nerve and the superficial temporal artery. These variations may serve as an anatomical explanation for this point as a source of migraine headaches in some patients. A topographical map of the relationship between these two structures may serve as a guide for surgeons interested in decompressing the nerve from the artery when indicated.

Primary breast augmentation today: a survey of current breast augmentation practice patterns.

A study was undertaken to survey current practice patterns concerning primary breast augmentation. Members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) were electronically surveyed concerning issues such as incision location, implant size and type, and complications, as well as information about the surgeons, their practices, and where procedures are performed. The survey response rate was 30%. Plastic surgeons from the South and Southwest made up 40% of respondents. Forty-six percent of respondents had more than 20 years of experience in practice. Forty-three percent of primary breast augmentations were performed in outpatient surgery centers. An anesthesiologist was in attendance in 60% of cases. The average operative time--indicated in 80% of responses--ranged from 45 to 90 minutes. Thirty-three percent of responding plastic surgeons used the base diameter to determine implant size and respondents most commonly used a smooth saline implant placed through an inframammary incision in a submuscular pocket. The most frequently reported complication was nipple sensation changes. Although the reintroduction of silicone gel implants was accompanied by expectations of a sharp increase in their use, this survey revealed that among ASAPS members, saline implants currently are used more often than silicone gel implants. However, both saline and silicone gel implants are used frequently, safely, and reliably. This survey represents a snapshot of current practice and future trends in primary breast augmentation will require additional assessment, although increased use of silicone gel breast prostheses over time is expected.

The pyriform ligament.

BACKGROUND: Several ligaments are believed to support the nasal tip. Intraoperative dissection has suggested that a broader ligament may exist along the pyriform rim than has been previously noted. This observation, along with the concept that pyriform rim shape may affect nasal tip projection by ligamentous fixation, led to the present study. METHODS: Ten hemifacial fresh cadaver dissections were performed. Sequential dissection was performed of tissue layers aided by magnification with loupes and an operating microscope. The fascial connection between pyriform rim bone and the upper and lower lateral cartilages and to the alar base was noted. The relationship of upper to lower lateral cartilage, and of the investing fascia to the lower lateral cartilage, was defined. RESULTS: A dense fascial system was noted in all cadaver dissections arising from the periosteum of the pyriform rim. This ligamentous system inserted onto both the upper and lower lateral cartilages. It encompassed the previously described lateral sesamoid complex ligament and the ligament between the upper and lower lateral cartilage. This fascia has a consistent anatomical location and spans the pyriform rim from nasal bone to anterior nasal spine. CONCLUSIONS: A ligament exists between the pyriform rim and lateral cartilages and is broader and more expansive than previously described. It encompasses the previously described lateral sesamoid complex and the ligament between the upper and lower lateral cartilages. The consistent anatomical origin of this membrane suggests that the term "pyriform ligament" may be appropriate nomenclature. This ligament may be important in translating anatomical shape--and distortion--of the pyriform rim to the nasal cartilages, and may therefore affect tip shape, tip projection, and nasal vault architecture.