Orthognathic Considerations of Maxillary and Mandibular Asymmetry at Skeletal Maturity in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate.

BACKGROUND: Improving occlusion and aesthetics is the primary objective of orthognathic surgery for patients with cleft lip and palate (CLP). However, these patients often suffer from horizontal, vertical, and rotational asymmetry in addition to maxillary retrusion. This study aims to describe maxillary and mandibular asymmetry in patients with CLP undergoing orthognathic surgery and analyze its anatomic basis. METHODS: Patients with isolated CLP undergoing CT imaging prior to orthognathic surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Maxillary and mandibular positioning and dimensional symmetry were evaluated. Incidence of clinically significant asymmetry, correlations between areas of asymmetry, and associations with clinical history were analyzed. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients, with mean age 17 years were analyzed, including 32 patients with unilateral CLP and 26 with bilateral CLP. Twenty (34%) patients demonstrated chin deviation ≥4mm and 21 (36%) had a ≥5% discrepancy in mandibular ramus lengths. Horizontal occlusal plane cant of ≥2° was seen in 20 (34%) maxillae and 28 (48%) mandibles, with dental arch yaw ≥2° noted in 32 (55%) of both maxillae and mandibles. Chin deviation correlated with maxillary cant, discrepancy in ramus length, discrepancy in mandibular body length, and discrepancy in condylar volume (p<0.05). Bilateral and unilateral CLP did not show significantly different asymmetry on any measure (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both maxillary and mandibular asymmetry is common in skeletally mature patients with CLP and frequently results in notable chin deviation. Preoperative three-dimensional imaging and virtual surgical planning of orthognathic surgery aid in recognition of facial asymmetries and reveal opportunities to optimize results in this population.

Louise Eisenhardt (1891-1967): World Renowned Neuropathologist, Brain Tumor Registry Director, First Editor-In-Chief of Journal of Neurosurgery, and President of Harvey Cushing Society.

BACKGROUND: This historical account reviews the course and lasting impact of Dr. Louise Eisenhardt (1891-1967) in neurosurgery. METHOD: The writing of this project was sparked by the discovery of original scientific and bibliographical information about Eisenhardt, testimony on personal relationships, and viewpoints after comprehensive compilation of information. It is a thorough review of literature on Eisenhardt and reflects the scope and depth of these prior works. RESULTS: It begins with the decisive influence of Harvey Cushing's mentorship and academic; follows Eisenhardt's impact on the development of modern neuropathology; discusses the Eisenhardt-Percival-Bailey-Cushing collaboration on gross brain specimens and histological classification of brain tumors; recounts Cushing's creation of a neuropathologist team for the Brain Tumor Registry working asynchronously with the Pathology Department at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital; Eisenhardt's aid in the development of intraoperative analysis of brain tumors; her career as a neuropathologist; her contributions as Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Neurosurgery; and her preservation of the Brain Tumor Registry at Yale University School of Medicine estimated the largest and most valuable databank of information in the history of medicine. Eisenhardt served as President, Historian, and Secretary-Treasurer of the Harvey Cushing Society, the professional organization now known as the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, and was senior lecturer for members of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, constituents of NEUROSURGERY Publications. CONCLUSIONS: Our article provides glimpses into the personality of Dr. Louise Eisenhardt and her marked impact on neurosurgery and allied neurosciences.

Use of Cosmetic Facial Injectables After Facial Aesthetic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Over the last 2 decades, both invasive and minimally invasive aesthetic procedures have proliferated. Aesthetic surgeons often recommend injectable treatments after cosmetic facial surgery for multiple reasons. However, literature is lacking on how cosmetic surgery affects postoperative facial injectable use. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of facial injectable use after cosmetic facial surgery. METHODS: All adult patients operated on by a single surgeon between 2013 and 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients who had any of the following cosmetic facial surgeries were included: rhytidectomy, blepharoplasty, rhinoplasty, or genioplasty. Patient demographics, clinical history, intraoperative factors, and use of cosmetic facial injectables (neurotoxin, facial fillers, deoxycholic acid, poly-l-lactic acid) were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients who underwent facial cosmetic surgery were reviewed, of whom 158 were included. Of these, 89 patients had rhytidectomy (56.3%), 112 had blepharoplasty (70.9%), 28 had rhinoplasty (17.7%), and 7 had genioplasty (4.4%). Injectables were administered to 44.3% of patients after their surgery (n = 73), compared with only 17.7% before surgery (n = 28) (P < 0.001). The most common postoperative injectables were neurotoxins (48.5%) and facial fillers (46.0%), followed by deoxycholic acid (2.7%) and poly-l-lactic acid (2.7%). Multivariate regression revealed factors positively correlated with future injectable use were index blepharoplasty or rhinoplasty, and history of preoperative neurotoxin injection (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Cosmetic facial injectables are an important consideration in achieving and maintaining optimal facial aesthetics. Their use, especially neurotoxins and facial fillers, has increased among patients postoperatively. These results highlight the contribution of injectable procedures in the context of multidimensional care for augmenting facial aesthetics.