Abdominoplasty in the Overweight and Obese Population: Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty is a safe, efficacious body contouring procedure commonly performed on patients after massive weight loss or pregnancy, or because of general aging. However, complication rates and patient satisfaction levels remain largely unexplored for the overweight and obese patient population. The purpose of this study was twofold: to determine the complication rate and to gauge the psychological impact of abdominoplasty in the overweight or obese patient. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive overweight and obese patients undergoing abdominoplasty or panniculectomy over a 12-year period from January of 2004 to December of 2016. Patient medical records were reviewed to identify patient demographics and comorbidities, operative details, and postoperative course. A patient survey was used to assess satisfaction, personal experience with complications, and the recovery process. RESULTS: Forty-six total patients underwent abdominoplasty or panniculectomy during the 12-year period and met the criterion of body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m. The average patient body mass index was 32.0 kg/m, with the majority of the patients categorized as overweight. The average abdominal resection weight was 4834.9 g. Major complications, defined as complications requiring return to the operating room, occurred in four patients (8.7 percent). Minor complications, defined as complications that could be handled in an office setting, occurred in 18 patients (39.1 percent). Thirty-six patients (78.3 percent) responded to the survey. The overwhelming majority of patients who responded to the survey [n = 35 (97.2 percent)] stated that they were satisfied with the final outcome and would choose to have the procedure again. CONCLUSION: Abdominoplasty and panniculectomy in overweight and obese patients are associated with an elevated complication rate, yet patient satisfaction is overwhelmingly high, suggesting the viability of body contouring procedures in this patient population. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Facilitated Alar Rim Graft Placement with an Ophthalmic Slit Blade.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Ketorolac May Increase Hematoma Risk in Reduction Mammaplasty: A Case-control Study.

BACKGROUND: Ketorolac is a potent nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug that has valuable analgesic properties but also a hypothetical risk of increased bleeding due to inhibition of platelet activation. The clinical significance of this risk, however, is unclear when it is used after reduction mammaplasty. Our study objective was to therefore examine the association between ketorolac exposure and hematoma occurrence after breast reduction surgery. We hypothesized that there was no association between ketorolac exposure and hematoma occurrence in breast reduction surgery. METHODS: A case-control design was used. Data from charts of all reduction mammaplasties that developed hematomas requiring surgical evacuation (cases) at our university-based hospitals were retrieved and matched to data from charts of reduction mammaplasty patients who did not indicate this complication (controls). Matching occurred in a 1:1 ratio based on 4 criteria: age, body mass index, institution, and preexisting hypertension. Charts were reviewed for retrospective information on exposure to ketorolac. Odds ratio (OR) was calculated with an OR > 1 favoring an association. RESULTS: From 2002 to 2016, 40 cases of hematoma met inclusion criteria and were matched with 40 controls (N = 80). Cases had a significantly lower body mass index than controls; however, the other baseline patient demographics were similar between the 2 groups. There was an association between hematoma formation and exposure to ketorolac (OR, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-7.4; P = 0.114) and a trend for greater risk of hematoma formation, although this was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this level 3 evidence, there appears to be an association between perioperative ketorolac exposure and hematoma after breast reduction surgery, but it was not statistically significant. Although this study was adequately powered, the OR of 2.4 was associated with a wide confidence interval. A larger sample size may increase the precision of the results and may also make the association definitive.

Pyoderma Gangrenosum Involving all Four Extremities.

Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare inflammatory ulcerative condition that occurs in less than 10 cases per million people per year. Diagnosing this condition is difficult as there are no definitive serological or histopathological markers, and it is considered a clinical diagnosis of exclusion. The authors present a unique case of PG involving all 4 extremities--a distribution not previously reported. This case highlights the importance of a comprehensive and systematic workup of these patients; early recognition of PG, which can have unusual presentations; and a cautious approach to surgical debridement.

Methodological guide to adopting new aesthetic surgical innovations.

Aesthetic surgery is known for its prolific introduction of new techniques, devices, and products. The implementation of any aesthetic innovation, however, may inadvertently expose patients to potential complications and adverse events. How do we decide whether a new technique or technology is superior-in both safety and effectiveness-compared with prevailing interventions? In this paper, we present some basic steps anchored in evidence-based surgery that aesthetic surgeons need to pursue in the adoption of a new technique, technology, or product. These steps include: (1) gaining familiarity with and understanding the levels of evidence; (2) performing an effective literature search; (3) formulating a critical appraisal of an article; (4) making the decision to adopt or reject; (5) recognizing the need for continued assessment; (6) acknowledging the need for education and credentialing; and (7) translation of the gathered knowledge. We hope that this paper will foster critical thinking and reduce the reliance on "photographic evidence" in aesthetic surgery literature.

A systematic review of utilities in hand surgery literature.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to determine if utilities (a quantitative way to express patient preferences for health outcomes) have been measured in hand surgery studies. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Cochrane, EMBASE, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, and CINAHL electronic databases (1966-2013). This search was supplemented by cited and manual reference searches and expert consultation to retrieve all relevant studies. Studies were selected by 2 independent reviewers if they pertained to hand or wrist surgery, were published in English, and measured utilities as an outcome. Descriptive data were extracted, including the hand surgery procedure investigated, study design, value of utilities, and methodology of utilities measurement. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included after reviewing 989 studies. Most hand conditions were associated with utilities less than 0.8. Utilities in the reviewed studies were measured using different methods and from different subjects. Three studies paradoxically mapped greater utilities for poorer heath states. CONCLUSIONS: Hand conditions cause impairment, as evidenced by their utilities. Measurement of utilities remains uncommon in hand surgery literature. Future studies should not only measure utilities but also do so with consistent and appropriate methodology to ensure that mapped values are valid and comparable. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/decision analysis III.

Reporting the level of evidence in the Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery: Why is it important?

The levels of evidence (LOE) table has been increasingly used by many surgical journals and societies to emphasize the importance of proper study design. Since their origin, LOE have evolved to consider multiple study designs and also the rigour of not only the study type but multiple aspects of its design. The use of LOE aids readers in appraising the literature while encouraging clinical researchers to produce high-quality evidence. The current article discusses the benefits and limitations of the LOE, as well as the LOE of articles published in the Canadian Journal of Plastic Surgery (CJPS). Along with an assessment of the LOE in the CJPS, the authors have provided recommendations to improve the quality and readability of articles published in the CJPS.

De nombreuses revues et sociétés de chirurgie utilisent de plus en plus le tableau de la qualité des preuves (QdP) pour souligner l'importance d'une bonne méthodologie d'étude. Depuis sa création, la QdP a évolué pour tenir compte de multiples méthodologies d'étude, de la rigueur du type d'étude ainsi que de la rigueur de multiples aspects de la méthodologie. L'utilisation de la QdP aide le lecteur à évaluer les publications tout en encourageant les chercheurs cliniques à produire des données probantes de qualité. Le présent article traite des avantages et des limites de la QdP, ainsi que de la QdP d'articles publiés dans le Journal canadien de chirurgie plastique (JCCP). En plus d'évaluer la QdP dans le JCCP, les auteurs font des recommandations pour améliorer la qualité et la lisibilité des articles publiés dans le JCCP.

Comparison of trapeziectomy and trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition is currently the most popular technique for operative treatment of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Based on the evidence, however, it is uncertain whether the addition of ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition to trapeziectomy confers any advantage. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and determine which procedure, trapeziectomy or trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition, offers the best results to patients. METHODS: A literature search was undertaken of the following electronic databases: Cochrane, AMED, EMBASE, HaPI, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, TRIP, and Proceedings First (2002 to 2009). Studies were selected by two independent assessors if (1) the study population included patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis and (2) the study was a randomized controlled trial or systematic review comparing the two procedures. Objective (i.e., range of motion, grip strength, pinch strength, health cost, and postoperative complications) and subjective (i.e., pain relief, hand function, overall satisfaction, and quality of life) outcomes were extracted. Statistical pooling and power analyses were performed with available data. RESULTS: Two systematic reviews and four randomized controlled trials were identified and included. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative grip strength (p = 0.77); tip pinch strength (p = 0.72); key pinch strength (p = 0.90); pain visual analogue scale score (p = 0.34); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (p = 0.75); and number of adverse events (p = 0.13). No studies reported health costs or quality of life. CONCLUSION: Neither procedure produced greater benefit in terms of outcomes investigated. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.(Figure is included in full-text article.).