Augmented Reality Microsurgery: Proof of Concept for a Novel Approach to Microsurgical Field Visualization in Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Microsurgery is conducted on tiny anatomical structures such as blood vessels and nerves. Over the past few decades, little has changed in the way plastic surgeons visualize and interact with the microsurgical field. New advances in augmented reality (AR) technology present a novel method for microsurgical field visualization. Voice- and gesture-based commands can be used in real time to adjust the size and position of a digital screen. Surgical decision support and/or navigation may also be used. The authors assess the use of AR in microsurgery. METHODS: The video feed from a Leica Microsystems OHX surgical microscope was streamed to a Microsoft HoloLens2 AR headset. A fellowship-trained microsurgeon and three plastic surgery residents then performed a series of four arterial anastomoses on a chicken thigh model using the AR headset, a surgical microscope, a video microscope (or "exoscope"), and surgical loupes. RESULTS: The AR headset provided an unhindered view of the microsurgical field and peripheral environment. The subjects remarked on the benefits of having the virtual screen track with head movements. The ability of participants to place the microsurgical field in a tailored comfortable, ergonomic position was also noted. Points of improvement were the low image quality compared with current monitors, image latency, and the lack of depth perception. CONCLUSIONS: AR is a useful tool that has the potential to improve microsurgical field visualization and the way surgeons interact with surgical monitors. Improvements in screen resolution, latency, and depth of field are needed.

Updates on Enhanced Recovery after Surgery protocols for plastic surgery of the breast and future directions.

Introduction: Perioperative pain control is an important component of any plastic surgery practice. Due to the incorporation of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols, reported pain level, opioid consumption, and hospital length of stay numbers have decreased significantly. This article provides an up-to-date review of current ERAS protocols in use, reviews individual aspects of ERAS protocols, and discusses future directions for the continual improvement of ERAS protocols and control of postoperative pain. ERAS components: ERAS protocols have proven to be excellent methods of decreasing patient pain, opioid consumption, and postanesthesia care unit (PACU) and/or inpatient length of stay. ERAS protocols have three phases: preoperative education and pre-habilitation, intraoperative anesthetic blocks, and a postoperative multimodal analgesia regimen. Intraoperative blocks consist of local anesthetic field blocks and a variety of regional blocks, with lidocaine or lidocaine cocktails. Various studies throughout the surgical literature have demonstrated the efficacy of these aspects and their relevance to the overall goal of decreasing patient pain, both in plastic surgery and other surgical fields. In addition to the individual ERAS phases, ERAS protocols have shown promise in both the inpatient and outpatient sectors of plastic surgery of the breast. Conclusion: ERAS protocols have repeatedly been shown to provide improved patient pain control, decreased hospital or PACU length of stay, decreased opioid use, and cost savings. Although protocols have most commonly been utilized in inpatient plastic surgery procedures of the breast, emerging evidence points towards similar efficacy when used in outpatient procedures. Furthermore, this review demonstrates the efficacy of local anesthetic blocks in controlling patient pain.

Decreasing Opioids in Outpatient Breast Surgery with an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Program and Preoperative Education.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs have been detailed in the literature predominantly in the inpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of an ERAS protocol with a preoperative educational class on opioid prescribing and patient outcomes for outpatient breast surgery. METHODS: An ERAS protocol was formulated focusing on preoperative education, multimodal pain control, and an intraoperative block. The study was conducted as an institutional review board-approved retrospective review. Women undergoing breast reconstruction revision, breast reduction, delayed insertion of prosthesis, tissue expander to implant exchange, and matching procedures were included. The patients were separated into pre-ERAS and ERAS cohorts. Data on demographic characteristics, postanesthesia care unit (PACU) length of stay, PACU oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption, outpatient OME prescriptions, major and minor complications, and need for additional opioid prescriptions were collected. Analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test or chi-square test as appropriate. RESULTS: Group 1 (pre-ERAS) and group 2 (ERAS) each included 68 patients. The cohorts had similar age, body mass index, diabetes status, and tobacco use. Group 1 was prescribed an average of 216 OMEs, compared with 126.4 OMEs for group 2, a 41.5% decrease ( P < 0.0001). The pre-ERAS group consumed an average of 23.3 OMEs in the PACU versus 16.6 OMEs in the ERAS group ( P = 0.005). Fewer patients in the ERAS group required additional prescriptions for narcotic pain medication at postoperative follow-up ( P = 0.116). No differences were seen in major or minor complications. CONCLUSION: An ERAS protocol that uses a multimodal approach to pain control and preoperative patient education is useful in the outpatient setting and can help decrease opioid consumption. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Comparison of Liposomal Bupivacaine to a Local Analgesic Cocktail for Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks in Abdominally Based Microvascular Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane blocks can improve pain control and decrease opioid use within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in patients undergoing abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction. The authors have transitioned to using a local analgesic cocktail for transversus abdominis plane blocks. The purpose of this study was to compare postoperative opioid use in patients who received the blocks. METHODS: Patients who underwent abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction between November of 2015 and December of 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The study group received bupivacaine, ketorolac, dexmedetomidine, and dexamethasone; the control group received liposomal bupivacaine with or without bupivacaine, ketorolac, or dexmedetomidine, as a transversus abdominis plane block. The primary outcome of interest was postoperative opioid use and pain scores. RESULTS: One hundred four women met inclusion criteria: 36 in group A (before ERAS, before transversus abdominis plane block), 38 in group B (ERAS, transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine), and 30 in group C (ERAS, transversus abdominis plane block with local anesthetic cocktail). Total daily oral morphine equivalent consumption (group A, 633; group B, 240; group C, 135; p < 0.0001) and average daily oral morphine equivalent consumption (group A, 137; group B, 56; group C, 29; p < 0.0001) were significantly less for group C in the inpatient phase. Patients in group C were prescribed significantly fewer outpatient oral morphine equivalents (group A, 79; group B, 74; group C, 52; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis plane blocks are a significant component of an ERAS protocol for abdominally based breast reconstruction. Liposomal bupivacaine is a popular option for transversus abdominis plane blocks. The authors' results demonstrate that a local anesthetic cocktail, composed of economical and readily available medications, can provide excellent patient pain control and decrease postoperative opioid use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Ambidexterity in left-handed and right-handed individuals and implications for surgical training.

Surgical training has historically been geared toward right-handed individuals. This could cause mentors to perceive left-handed students and residents as being more difficult to train. This study examined whether differences in dexterity exist between left-handed and right-handed individuals and the implications this may have on surgical training. Recent literature suggests that surgical training may need to be updated to train left-handed students more effectively. In this prospective, crossover study, 50 right-handed and 50 left-handed individuals of varying ages and occupations were evaluated using the O'Conner Tweezer Dexterity Test. Participants were timed while they used flat-tipped forceps to pick up 1″ brass metal pins and sequentially place one pin each in 100 pinholes 1/16″ in diameter on a 21″ × 12″ board. Participants completed this exercise with their dominant hand followed by their nondominant hand. Nondominant hand dexterity was measured by dividing the nondominant hand completion time by the dominant hand completion time, with a higher percentage associated with higher ambidexterity. Using the Student's two-tailed t test, we found that left-handed individuals had an 97.2% congruence between dominant and nondominant hands while right-handed individuals had a 71.6% congruence (P < 0.001). In conclusion, our results show that left-handed individuals have a greater degree of ambidexterity than their right-handed counterparts. These results suggest that any perceived difference between left-handed and right-handed surgical residents may not be due to innate skill or dexterity, but rather a combination of external influences.

Microsurgery in the era of COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic has presented new challenges to microsurgeons. The virus is highly transmissible, with increased risk during operations that involve the aerodigestive tract. It is important to be able to identify high-risk operations and scenarios to guide management decisions and selection of personal protective equipment. Preoperative testing is a key element in identifying high-risk scenarios, and preoperative testing protocols are essential to maintaining safety in the COVID-19 era. Because COVID-19 can be transmitted via the conjunctiva, adaptations to loupes and microscopes are necessary to safely perform microsurgery in high-risk scenarios. We outline a potential risk stratification algorithm, as well as precautions for each scenario. Potential areas for innovation are also discussed.

A Protocol for Safe Head and Neck Reconstructive Surgery in the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had significant implications for citizens globally and for the healthcare system, including plastic surgeons. Operations of the upper aerodigestive tract, including head and neck reconstruction and craniomaxillofacial procedures, are of particularly high risk because they may aerosolize the virus and lead to severe surgeon and surgical team illness. Until the virus is eradicated or widespread vaccination occurs, we recommend certain precautions to safely perform these operations. We propose evolving algorithms for head and neck reconstruction and facial trauma surgeries to maintain provider safety. Central to these guidelines are preoperative COVID-19 testing, appropriate personal protective equipment, and operative techniques/principles that minimize operative time and aerosolization of the virus. We aim to provide efficient care to our patients throughout this pandemic, while maintaining the safety of plastic surgeons and other healthcare providers.

Transition to Nonopioid Analgesia Does Not Impair Pain Control After Major Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal analgesic protocols are increasingly favored over traditional opioid regimens due to decreased adverse side effects and reduced opioid consumption. Concomitant use of selective cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitor celecoxib and anticonvulsant gabapentin have been proposed to adequately control acute postoperative pain. OBJECTIVES: To determine efficacy of postoperative pain control using nonopioid pain regimen vs traditional opioids for all aesthetic plastic surgery procedures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on 462 consecutive outpatient plastic surgery procedures by a single surgeon between November 2015 and July 2017. Procedures in the historical control group (n = 275) received traditional postoperative narcotic, hydrocodone-acetaminophen. Patients in the more recent nonopioid study group (n = 187) received a pre-, peri-, and postoperative regimen of celecoxib and gabapentin. RESULTS: Similar demographic characteristics between the control and study groups were observed: mean age, 39.7 vs 39.5 years; BMI, 24.6 vs 24.4 kg/m2; and ratio of female patients 92.7% vs 92.4%. A significant reduction in rescue analgesia (meperidine 44.6% vs 14.9%, P < 0.001) and antiemetic use (ondansetron 24.2% vs 16.3%, P < 0.05; promethazine 17.0% vs 4.7%, P < 0.001) in postanesthesia recovery unit (PACU) was noted in the nonopioid group compared to the control. The average stay in PACU also decreased in the study group (82 ± 39 min vs 70 ± 22 min, P < 0.001). Both groups reported low numbers of adverse events and need for additional pain prescriptions. These findings were reproducible in the breast subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: This nonopioid regimen is as effective as traditional opioid use for acute postoperative pain control and decreased recovery time for outpatient aesthetic plastic breast surgeries.