Improved Success Rate with Corticocancellous Block Compared to Cancellous-Only Trephine Technique in Alveolar Bone Grafting from the Iliac Crest.

BACKGROUND: Alveolar bone grafting is an important component of cleft lip and palate treatment, with iliac crest as the most common donor site. Although studies have attempted to quantify alveolar bone graft resorption, few have directly compared the outcomes of graft techniques. This study compared the long-term success rates of corticocancellous block to trephine cancellous-only alveolar bone grafting from the iliac crest. METHODS: A retrospective review of all cleft lip and palate patients undergoing alveolar bone grafting over 14 years was performed. Power analysis was performed to determine sample size. Data including patient demographics, surgical technique, need for repeated grafting, complications, length of hospitalization, and follow-up were collected. Statistical analyses of outcomes were performed based on initial graft technique. RESULTS: A total of 106 initial operations met criteria, with 73 using trephine technique, 30 using corticocancellous block, and three undergoing open cancellous harvest. The overall regraft rate was 40 percent, with an average follow-up of 43.5 months. Patients with corticocancellous block grafting had significantly lower rates of repeated grafting compared to trephine technique (16.7 percent versus 47.9 percent; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in complication rates or length of admission between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: The use of corticocancellous block alveolar bone grafting demonstrated significantly higher success rates when compared to cancellous-only trephine techniques, with no difference in complication rates. Although this must be weighed against the minor disadvantages of open iliac harvest, surgeons should consider incorporating en bloc corticocancellous bone to optimize outcomes in alveolar bone grafting. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

The Use of Validated Visual Scales in Plastic Surgery: Where Are We Now?

BACKGROUND: The assessment of the human body, whether for aesthetic or reconstructive purposes, is an inherently visual endeavor. Ideally, reproducible, prompt, and cost-effective systems of visual evaluation would exist that can provide validated assessments of the aesthetic endpoints of treatment. One method to accomplish a standardization of the appreciation of visual endpoints is the use of visual scales. The goal of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate the use of validated visual scales within aesthetic medicine, dermatology, and plastic and reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A literature search was performed with a defined search strategy and extensive manual screening process. The Medical Outcomes Trust guidelines for visual scales in medicine were used, with special attention paid to each study's validation metrics. The review process identified 44 publications with validation data of sufficient quality from an initial survey of 27,745 articles. All rating scales based on imaging other than standardized clinical photographs were excluded. RESULTS: The review demonstrates that validated visual assessment in plastic surgery is incomplete. Within specific subfields of aesthetic medicine and dermatology, many of the ( n = 20) facial aging scales were well-validated and demonstrated high reliability. Publications ( n = 8) focused on the evaluation of facial clefts demonstrated heterogeneity in the methods of validation and in overall reliability. Within the areas of breast surgery ( n = 9), body contouring ( n = 2), and scarring ( n = 5), the scales were variable in the methods used and the validation procedures were diverse. Scales using a visual guide tended to have better interrater (kappa = 0.75) and intrarater reliability (kappa = 0.78), regardless of the specific area of interest. CONCLUSIONS: The fields of aesthetic medicine, and aesthetic and reconstructive plastic surgery require assessment of visual states over time and between many observers. For these reasons, the development of validated and reliable methods of visual assessment are critical. Until recently, the use of these tools has been limited by their time-consuming nature and cost.

Perioperative Pain Management in Cleft Lip and Palate Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies.

BACKGROUND: Developing effective strategies to manage perioperative pain remains a focus of cleft care. The present study's purpose was to systematically review perioperative pain control strategies for cleft lip and palate repair. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed. Primary outcomes included pain scale scores and time to analgesia failure. Cohen d normalized effect size permitted comparison between studies, and a fixed-effects model was used for analysis. I2 and Q-statistic p values were calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included: eight of 23 studies provided data for meta-analytic comparison. Meta-analyses evaluated the efficacy of intraoperative nerve blocks on postoperative pain management. Meta-analysis included a total of 475 treatment and control patients. Cleft lip studies demonstrated significantly improved pain control with a nerve block versus placebo by means of pain scale scores ( p < 0.001) and time to analgesia failure ( p < 0.001). Measurement of effect size over time demonstrated statistically significant pain relief with local anesthetic. Palatoplasty studies showed significantly improved time to analgesia failure ( p < 0.005) with maxillary and palatal nerve blocks. Multiple studies demonstrated an opioid-sparing effect with the use of local anesthetics and other nonopioid medications. Techniques for nerve blocks in cleft lip and palate surgery are reviewed. CONCLUSIONS: The present systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies demonstrates that intraoperative nerve blocks for cleft lip and palate surgery provide effective pain control. Opioid-sparing effects were appreciated in multiple studies. Intraoperative nerve blocks should be considered in all cases of cleft lip and palate repair to improve postoperative pain management. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Crowdsourced Assessment of Aesthetic Outcomes after Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the aesthetic success of breast reconstruction can be difficult. Patients, surgeons, and the general population may differ in what constitutes a successful outcome. Recently, crowdsourcing has emerged to accumulate and analyze data on a massive scale. The authors propose that crowdsourcing can be a useful tool to reliably rate aesthetic outcomes of breast reconstruction. METHODS: One hundred one deidentified photographs of patients at various stages of breast reconstruction were gathered. Assessment tools included a five-point Likert scale and the transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) visual assessment scale. Anonymous crowd workers and a group of expert reconstructive surgeons rated an identical set of photographs on the Likert scale. Crowd workers also rated the set of photographs on the TRAM scale. RESULTS: The authors obtained 901 anonymous, layperson evaluations on both Likert and TRAM scales. Crowdsourced assessment data collection took 28.6 hours. Expert assessment took 15 months. Expert and crowdsourced scores were equivalent on the Likert scale (overall interrater reliability, κ = 0.99; 95 percent CI, 0.98 to 0.99). Intrarater reliability among each subcomponent was highly reproducible for the crowd (r = 0.98; 95 percent CI, 0.97 to 0.99) and experts (r = 0.82; 95 percent CI, 0.77 to 0.87). Breast contour and positioning were most predictive of overall aesthetic result. Skin patch and scar were least predictive of overall aesthetic appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Aesthetic outcomes rated by crowds were reliable and correlated closely with those by expert surgeons. Crowdsourcing can be a rapid, reliable, and valid way to assess aesthetic outcomes in the breast reconstruction patient.

Long-Term Effect of Multiple Operations on Psychosocial Function in Teenage Cleft Lip and Palate Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cleft lip and palate patients undergo a significant number of interventions during their childhood and adolescence. Although the intention of such interventions is to improve psychosocial functioning, there exists a paucity of data on the psychosocial outcomes of the burden of care on cleft children. In this work, the long-term effects of quantity and timing of childhood operations on teenagers with cleft lip and palate were evaluated. METHODS: Cleft lip and palate patients (aged 14 to 17 years; n = 55) and an age-matched unaffected cohort (n = 14) prospectively enrolled from two institutions were administered the anger, anxiety, and depressive symptoms instruments from the Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. Total number of operations and operations stratified by age groups (0 to 7, 8 to 10, 11 to 13, and 14 to 17 years) were evaluated in relationship to instrument scores. Descriptive statistics, independent t tests, Pearson correlations, and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS: No differences in overall psychosocial functioning were found between the cleft lip and palate and comparison groups. Total quantity of childhood operations did not correlate to psychosocial functioning of cleft lip and palate teenagers. However, multiple linear regression analyses demonstrated that increased number of operations in the 8- to 10-year-old age range predicted increased anxiety and depressive symptoms in teenagers (ß = 0.38, p = 0.009; and ß = 0.29, p = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: It was previously reported by the authors' group that the 8- to 10-year-old age range is an at-risk period for psychosocial distress in children with craniofacial anomalies. Their current work demonstrates that increased number of operations during this time frame may result in long-term consequences in anxiety and depression in cleft lip and palate patients. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Surgical Treatment of Nonsyndromic Unicoronal Craniosynostosis.

PURPOSE: Unicoronal synostosis (UCS) remains one of the most difficult craniofacial conditions to treat. This review attempts to consolidate all existing literature from the past 25 years that has investigated surgical treatment of nonsyndromic UCS. Additional attention is paid to specific areas of controversy regarding surgical management and evaluation of UCS: outcomes of fronto-orbital advancement (FOA) versus endoscopic strip craniectomy (ESC), emergence of spring-associated cranioplasty for craniosynostosis, and morphologic assessment metrics. METHODS: A literature search from 1992 to 2017 was performed with a defined search strategy and manual screening process. About 24 studies were included in the final review. RESULTS: There is inconsistency among studies in measuring outcomes. Despite wide utilization, FOA produces mixed results, especially when looking at long-term outcomes. Preliminary data suggest advantages to using ESC over FOA with regard to facial symmetry, postoperative strabismus, and operating time. Distraction osteogenesis has long been utilized in Asia and is now being actively studied in the United States. Data on spring-assisted cranioplasty are lacking. Long-term results at skeletal maturity for many of these techniques are lacking. DISCUSSION: Despite some promising results, methods of measurement are inconsistent and long-term data are lacking. All future research in this area would benefit from consistent and standardized reporting of data, including perioperative statistics and reproducible 3-dimensional computed tomography craniofacial measurements. Additionally, no definitive recommendations can be made until data at skeletal maturity are studied, and all studies would benefit from long-term follow-up data.

A Three-Dimensional Study of Midfacial Changes Following Le Fort II Distraction With Zygomatic Repositioning in Syndromic Patients.

Le Fort II distraction with zygomatic repositioning introduced the ability to restore central midfacial height and convexity independent of changes in orbital morphology. This study analyzes midfacial and orbital morphology before and after Le Fort II distraction with zygomatic repositioning.All patients who underwent Le Fort II Distraction with zygomatic repositioning between 2013 and 2015 were included. Two- and 3-dimensional measurements were made using 3dMD Vultus software to assess canthal tilt, nasolabial angle, ratio of midfacial to lower facial height, and absolute change in nasal length. Presence of an open bite and Angle classification were assessed before and after surgery.Four patients underwent segmental midface advancement using Le Fort II distraction with zygomatic repositioning. Associated diagnoses included Apert syndrome, Goldenhar syndrome, and achondroplasia. Changes in facial dimensions included: 3.19° improvement in canthal tilt (range -4.7° to 8.4°), 9° change in nasolabial angle (range -1.0° to 19°), and 0.69 cm increase in absolute nasal length (range 0.2-0.94 cm). Mean ratio of midfacial to lower facial height was 0.79 preoperatively and 0.89 postoperatively. Preoperatively, all patients demonstrated Angle class III with 3 of 4 patients demonstrating anterior open bite. All achieved closure of open bite and demonstrated class I or II occlusion. No complications were observed.Le Fort II distraction with zygomatic repositioning resulted in normalization of midfacial soft tissue landmarks. This form of advancement demonstrates the ability to selectively improve midfacial height and canthal tilt while restoring normal occlusion.