Staged abdominal wall reconstruction in the setting of complex gastrointestinal reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Literature on one- versus two-staged abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) with complex gastrointestinal reconstruction (GIR) is limited to single-arm case series with a focus on patients who complete all planned stages. Herein, we describe our experience with both one- and two-staged approaches to AWR/GIR, with attention to those who did not complete both intended stages. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to identify patients who underwent a one- or two-stage approach to GIR/AWR from 2013 to 2020. The one-stage approach included GIR and definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. The two-stage approach included Stage 1 (S1)-GIR and non-definitive herniorrhaphy and Stage 2 (S2)-definitive sublay mesh herniorrhaphy. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients underwent GIR/AWR: 20 (37.0%) underwent a planned 1-stage operation while 34 (63.0%) underwent S1 of a planned 2-stage approach. Patients assigned to the 2-stage approach were more likely to be smokers, have a history of mesh infection, have an enterocutaneous fistula, and a contaminated wound class (p<0.05). Of the 34 patients who underwent S1, 12 (35.3%) completed S2 during the mean follow-up period of 44 months while 22 (64.7%) did not complete S2. Of these, 10 (45.5%) developed hernia recurrence but did not undergo S2 secondary to elective nonoperative management (40%), pending preoperative optimization (30%), additional complex GIR (10%), hernia-related incarceration requiring emergent surgery (10%), or unrelated death (10%). No differences in outcome including SSI, SSO, readmission, and recurrence were noted between the 12 patients who completed the two-stage approach and the 20 patients who completed a one-stage approach, despite increased risk factors for complications in the 2-stage group (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Planned two-stage operations for GIR/AWR may distribute operative complexity and post-operative morbidity into separate surgical interventions. However, many patients may never undergo the intended definitive S2 herniorrhaphy. Future evaluation of 1- versus 2-stage GIR/AWR is needed to clarify indications for each approach. This work must also consider the frequent deviations from intended clinical course demonstrated in this study.

[Surgical strategy for postburn facial scar contracture].

Postburn facial scar contracture, which can cause disfigurement and functional impairment, is a major therapeutic challenge. Except for some scars with severe functional impairments such as ectropion of lid, obstruction of nostril, microstomia, and so on, other kinds of facial scars are recommended to be reconstructed after they become sufficiently softened. The selection of specific methods depends on the characteristics of the facial scar. The methods includ direct closure after resection, full or split-thickness skin transplantation, pedicled flap, distant flap, and free flap transfer, and tissue expansion. For the resurfacing of subtotal or total face deformity, composite facial tissue allotransplantation and prefabricated flap combined with tissue expansion and autologous fat injection are increasingly used to improve the facial aesthetic and functional outcome.

Focal choroidal excavation in patients with central serous chorioretinopathy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prevalence and clinical features of focal choroidal excavation (FCE) in patients presenting with central serous chorioretinopathy (CSC). METHODS: This is a retrospective consecutive case series of consecutive patients with CSC who were referred for spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) between January 2010 and December 2011. Medical records were reviewed and clinical features including presence of FCE in SD-OCT, fluorescence angiography (FA), and indocyanine green angiography (ICGA) were studied. RESULTS: Among the 116 CSC patients assessed, FCE was found in 11 eyes of 7 (6.0%) patients. FCE was associated with subretinal fluid in six eyes of six patients and serous pigment epithelial detachment in three eyes of two patients. The mean central subfield retinal thickness of CSC eyes with FCE was 283.7 µm, compared with 377.5 µm for CSC eyes without FCE (Mann-Whitney U-test, P=0.020). Five FCE eyes of five patients had focal leakage on FA. Choroidal hyperpermeability on ICGA was found in seven CSC eyes with FCE, with four eyes showing hypofluorescent spot corresponding to the FCE. After a mean follow-up of 16 months, visual acuity of all 11 eyes with FCE remained stable or improved at the last follow-up. CONCLUSION: FCE is not an uncommon feature in patients with CSC and might be associated with choroidal hemodynamic disturbances.