Reconstruction of Distal Nasal Defects Using Free Cartilage Batten Grafting With Secondary Intention Healing: A Retrospective Case Series of 129 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Surgical defects of the distal nose can pose significant reconstructive challenges. Free cartilage batten graft (FCBG) with secondary intention healing is an underreported yet effective repair option with cosmetically and functionally satisfying outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To share the authors' experience using FCBG with secondary intention healing on multiple nasal subunits, including a detailed evaluation of wound/graft characteristics and design modifications to optimize success with this single-stage approach. METHODS: A retrospective study of 129 patients who underwent FCBG with secondary intention healing after Mohs surgery from 2011 to 2018, using statistical analysis of numerous outcome measures graded independently by 2 fellowship-trained Mohs surgeons. RESULTS: Overall, healed wounds were graded aesthetically as follows: excellent (24%), very good (31%), good (31%), or poor (14%). Excellent/very good outcomes were seen for superficial (p < .001), small-to-medium sized wounds (p < .0001) repaired with cartilage that closely approximated the defect size (p < .05). Consistently optimal outcomes were seen in the 19 repairs involving the alar lobule (mid-ala) alone, graded excellent (47%), very good (32%), and good (21%). A majority of patients (86%) experienced mild to no alar retraction. Although 67% of all patients had some skin surface contour irregularity, only 8% of patients sought dermabrasion. Neither hematoma, infection, ear deformity, chondritis, nor graft desiccation were reported. CONCLUSION: A modified approach to FCBG with secondary intention healing provides a reliable, minimalistic, low-risk reconstructive option for mid-alar defects.

Ergonomics in Dermatologic Surgery: Lessons Learned Across Related Specialties and Opportunities for Improvement.

BACKGROUND: As the practice of dermatology becomes increasingly procedurally based, there is a concordant rise in musculoskeletal injury (MSI) risk. Dermatologic surgeons are most susceptible and, although the majority suffer from MSI, few have received any formal ergonomics training. This stems from a lack of awareness of this troubling trend and a paucity of research and education on the ergonomics of dermatologic surgery. OBJECTIVE: To highlight pertinent ergonomics principles and strategies from other specialties that could be translated into dermatology, and to synthesize general recommendations aimed at reducing MSI among dermatologic surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive search of the PubMed and Cochrane Reviews databases from 1975 to 2019 was conducted, using a combination of ergonomics-related search terms, generating 6 publications from the dermatology literature and 58 from the fields of dentistry, medicine, and select surgical subspecialties. RESULTS: This multidisciplinary approach yielded multiple interventions that could be applied directly (i.e., adequate lighting, adjustable operating tables, and surgical seat heights) or indirectly pending further investigation into their feasibility (i.e., video displays of the surgical field to allow neutral head and neck postures). CONCLUSION: Although much can be learned from decades of prior ergonomics research from other specialties, considerations that are unique to dermatology remain and must be addressed with specialty-specific research.

Development and validation of a photographic scale for assessment of lip fullness.

BACKGROUND: As lip augmentation becomes more popular, validated measures of lip fullness for quantification of outcomes are needed. OBJECTIVE: Develop a scale for rating lip fullness and establish its reliability and sensitivity for assessing clinically meaningful differences. METHODS: The initial Allergan Lip Fullness Scale (iLFS; a four-point photographic scale with verbal descriptions) was validated by eight physicians rating 55 live subjects during two rounds, conducted on one day. In addition, subjects performed self-evaluations. The revised Allergan Lip Fullness Scale (LFS), a five-point scale with a broader range of lip presentations, was validated by 21 clinicians in two online image rating sessions, ≥14 days apart, in which they used the LFS to rate overall, upper, and lower lip fullness of 144 3-dimensional (3D) images. Physician inter- and intra-rater agreement, subject intra-rater agreement (iLFS), and subject-physician agreement (iLFS) were evaluated. Additionally, during online rating session 1, raters ranked 38 pairs of 3D images, taken before and after lip augmentation, as "clinically different" or "not clinically different." The median LFS score difference for clinically different pairs was calculated to determine the clinically meaningful difference. RESULTS: Clinician inter- and intra-rater agreement for the iLFS and LFS was substantial to almost perfect. Subject self-assessments (iLFS) had substantial intra-rater reliability and a high level of agreement with physician assessments. Median LFS score differences for overall, upper, and lower lip fullness were 1 (mean: 0.63-0.69) for "clinically different" and 0 (mean: 0.28-0.36) for "not clinically different" image pairs; thus, clinical significance of a 1-point difference in LFS score was established. CONCLUSIONS: The LFS is a reliable instrument for physician classification of lip fullness. A 1-point score difference can detect clinically meaningful differences in lip fullness.

An interrater and intrarater reliability study of 3 photographic scales for the classification of perioral aesthetic features.

BACKGROUND: Validated aesthetic rating scales for the perioral area provide objective evaluations for clinical trials and practice. OBJECTIVE: To confirm the reliability of 3 scales for evaluating dermal filler and neurotoxin treatments of the perioral area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three lip-specific photographic scales were developed from standardized 2-dimensional images to evaluate Perioral Lines at Rest (POL), Oral Commissures (OCS), and Perioral Lines at Maximum Contraction (POLM) severity scales. Each 4-grade scale (none to severe) had 3 representative images per grade. Physician validators rated volunteers on each scale (2 rounds of live review). Volunteers provided 2 series of self-assessments. Physician and subject intrarater reliability were based on the comparison of round 1 and round 2 scores (mean weighted kappa coefficient). Other measures were physician interrater agreement (intraclass correlation) and subject/physician interrater agreement (Pearson correlation). RESULTS: Physician intrarater agreement was almost perfect or substantial (POL, 0.725; OCS, 0.789; POLM, 0.826). Overall, physician interrater agreement was almost perfect for all 3 scales and ranged from moderate to substantial by grade. Subject intrarater agreement and subject/physician interrater agreement were substantial. CONCLUSION: All scales demonstrated a high degree of intrarater and interrater reliability during the validation process. Physician concordance was good; subject ratings were reliable and comparable to physician assessments.