Post-Cesarean Section Pyoderma Gangrenosum Presenting with Vasopressor-dependent Shock: Long-term Follow-up after Delayed Primary Closure.

A 28-year-old woman with poor wound healing and surgical site pain presented 5 days post-cesarean section (post-CS) with vasopressor-dependent shock and was eventually diagnosed with postoperative pyoderma gangrenosum (PG). A worsening clinical picture consistent with presumed necrotizing infection necessitated surgical debridement. The patient was ultimately taken to the operating room 4 times with transient improvement after the operations when she received perioperative corticosteroids. We were unable to identify an infectious source and cultures revealed no microorganisms. Dermatopathology revealed neutrophilic infiltrate and focal necrosis without microorganisms. The biopsy site began to concurrently exhibit pathergic changes, leading to a diagnosis of PG. Twelve weeks later, she underwent DPC of her abdominal wound while maintained on an immunosuppressive regimen of cyclosporine and prednisone. Incisional negative pressure wound therapy with a small window was used in the immediate postoperative period to allow for direct visualization of the closed incision. She healed without issue and her immunosuppressive regimen was ultimately discontinued. Postoperative PG is an uncommon diagnosis with high risk of morbidity. It is often mistaken for necrotizing infection. We report a unique case of post-CS PG presenting as vasopressor-dependent shock that was successfully closed with incisional negative pressure wound therapy with a small window.

Amputation versus Free Flap: Long-Term Outcomes of Microsurgical Limb Salvage and Risk Factors for Amputation in the Diabetic Population.

BACKGROUND: Reconstructive microsurgery is an effective limb-saving option for nonhealing lower extremity wounds in diabetic patients. However, the ability to predict the future need for amputation is unclear. This article seeks to identify risk factors for amputation following microsurgical free tissue transfer in the diabetic lower extremity. METHODS: Diabetic patients undergoing lower extremity free flap surgery between August of 2011 and January of 2018 performed by a single surgeon were identified retrospectively. Patient comorbidities, reconstructive conditions and flap traits, microsurgical outcomes, and long-term outcomes were examined. Variables conferring risk for future amputation were examined by means of regression analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients met the criteria. The overall immediate flap success rate was 94 percent (60 of 64). Long term, 50 patients (78.1 percent) underwent successful salvage, and 14 patients (21.9 percent) required major amputation. Acute flap loss resulted in four amputations, and delayed complications (hematoma, infection, recurrent nonhealing) resulted in 10 amputations. The average time to amputation was 5.6 months. Risk factors for amputation were end-stage renal disease (OR, 30.7; p = 0.0087), hindfoot wounds (OR, 4.6; p = 0.020), elevated hemoglobin A1C level greater than 8.4 percent (OR, 1.4; p = 0.05), and positive wound cultures (OR, 6.1; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple comorbidities and poor glucose control were identified as risk factors for amputation after free flap limb salvage. However, successful limb preservation is possible. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Free Anterolateral Thigh Versus Vastus Lateralis Muscle Flaps for Coverage of Lower Extremity Defects in Chronic Wounds.

INTRODUCTION: The thigh has been called the reconstructive warehouse. The anterolateral thigh (ALT) and vastus lateralis (VL) flaps are popular options for free tissue transfer in lower extremity reconstruction. We sought to review the largest experience of these flaps in the chronic wound population. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent lower extremity reconstruction using ALT or VL flaps by a single surgeon between 2012 and 2018. RESULTS: Fifty ALT and 34 VL flaps were identified. Comorbidities were similar between groups with the exception of body mass index (ALT, 26.8; VL, 30.1; P = 0.0121). There was also a significant difference rate of independent ambulation preoperatively (ALT, 98.0%; VL, 85.3%; P = 0.0375). An adjunct was needed for recipient site coverage in 31.5% (19/50) of ALT patients and 100% (34/34) of VL patients. Of the patients who received skin grafts, delayed placement was more frequent in the ALT (53.3%) versus VL cohort (18.2%) (P = 0.0192). Median graft take and the rate of skin graft revision were not statistically different. Flap success rates were similar: ALT, 92.0%; and VL, 94.1%. Overall complication rates were not significantly different: ALT, 26.0%; and VL, 38.2%. Infectious complications were also comparable. Subsequent debulking procedures were performed on 8.0% of ALT flaps and 11.8% VL flaps (P = 0.7092). Limb salvage rates were similar between both cohorts (ALT, 82.0%; VL, 88.2%). Ambulation rate was significantly higher for the ALT cohort at 92.0% compared with 73.5% for the VL cohort (P = 0.0216). Median follow-up was similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: We present the largest comparison study of ALT and VL flaps in lower extremity salvage. Complication rates, flap success, and limb salvage were similar between the 2 cohorts. Despite a high prevalence of osteomyelitis in both cohorts, there was no difference in infectious complications. Although the need for skin grafting remains an inherent disadvantage of the VL flap, a significant proportion of ALT recipients also needed an adjunct for recipient site coverage. Ambulation rate was significantly greater in the ALT group. However, flap type was no longer significant for ambulation when controlling for preoperative ambulatory status.

Post-mastectomy radiation arteritis in a patient presenting with upper extremity claudication.

Radiation arteritis is a rare but serious complication following radiation therapy for the treatment of breast cancer. We present the case of a 53-year-old female presenting with right upper extremity claudication 4 months following radiation therapy for the treatment of right breast cancer, stage 3b invasive ductal carcinoma. She was referred to vascular surgery and initial imaging with computed tomography angiography (CTA) revealed occlusion from the origin of the subclavian to axillary artery. We discuss the implications that these vascular findings have on potential breast reconstruction options.

Adverse Event Incidences following Facial Plastic Surgery Procedures: Incorporating FACE-Q Data to Improve Patient Preparation.

BACKGROUND: Before creation and validation of the FACE-Q by Pusic et al., adverse event types and incidences following facial cosmetic procedures were objectively measured and reported by physicians, potentially leading to misrepresentation of the true patient experience. This article analyzes and compares adverse event data from both FACE-Q and recent review articles, incorporating patient-reported adverse event data to improve patient preparation for facial cosmetic procedures. METHODS: FACE-Q adverse event data were extracted from peer-reviewed validation articles for face lift, rhinoplasty, and blepharoplasty, and these data were compared against adverse effect risk data published in recent Continuing Medical Education/Maintenance of Certification and other articles regarding the same procedures. RESULTS: The patient-reported adverse event data sets and the physician-reported adverse event data sets do contain overlapping elements, but each data set also contains unique elements. The data sets represent differing viewpoints. Furthermore, patient-reported outcomes from the FACE-Q provided incidence data that were otherwise previously not reported. CONCLUSIONS: In the growing facial cosmetic surgery industry, patient perspective is critical as a determinant of success; therefore, incorporation of evidence-based patient-reported outcome data will not only improve patient expectations and overall experience, but will also reveal adverse event incidences that were previously unknown. Given that there is incomplete overlap between patient-reported and physician-reported adverse events, presentation of both data sets in the consultation setting will improve patient preparation. Furthermore, use of validated tools such as the FACE-Q will allow surgeons to audit themselves critically.

FACE-Q Eye Module for Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Cosmetic Eye Treatments.

IMPORTANCE: Aesthetic eye treatments can dramatically change a person's appearance, but outcomes are rarely measured from the patient perspective. The patient perspective could be measured using an eye-specific patient-reported outcome measure. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of FACE-Q scales and an adverse effect checklist designed to measure outcomes following cosmetic eye treatments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Pretreatment and posttreatment patients 18 years and older who had undergone facial aesthetic procedures were recruited from plastic surgery clinics in United States and Canada and completed FACE-Q scales between June 6, 2010, and July 14, 2014. We used Rasch Measurement Theory, a modern psychometric approach, to refine the scales and to examine psychometric properties. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The FACE-Q Eye Module, which has 4 scales that measure appearance of the eyes, upper and lower eyelids, and eyelashes. Scale scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). The module also includes a checklist measuring postblepharoplasty adverse effects. RESULTS: Overall, 233 patients (81% response rate) 18 years and older participated. Adverse effects included being bothered by eyelid scars, dry eyes, and eye irritation. In Rasch Measurement Theory analysis, each scale's items had ordered thresholds and good item fit. Person Separation Index and Cronbach α were greater than or equal to 0.83. Higher scores on the eye scales correlated with fewer adverse effects (range, -0.26 to -0.36). In the pretreatment group, older age correlated with lower scores (range, -0.42 to -0.51) on the scales measure appearance of the eyes and upper and lower eyelids. Compared with the pretreatment group, posttreatment participants reported significantly better scores on the scales measuring appearance of eyes overall, as well as upper and lower eyelids. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The FACE-Q Eye Module can be used in clinical practice, research and quality improvement to collect evidence-based outcomes data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Development and Psychometric Validation of the FACE-Q Skin, Lips, and Facial Rhytids Appearance Scales and Adverse Effects Checklists for Cosmetic Procedures.

IMPORTANCE: Patient-reported outcomes data are needed to determine the efficacy of cosmetic procedures. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of 8 appearance scales and 2 adverse effect checklists for use in minimally invasive cosmetic procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a psychometric study to select the most clinically sensitive items for inclusion in item-reduced scales and to examine reliability and validity with patients. Recruitment of the sample for this study took place from June 6, 2010, through July 28, 2014. Data analysis was performed from December 11, 2014, to December 22, 2015. Pretreatment and posttreatment patients 18 years and older who were consulting for any type of facial aesthetic treatment were studied. Patients were from plastic surgery and dermatology outpatient clinics in the United States and Canada (field-test sample) and a clinical trial of a minimally invasive lip treatment in the United Kingdom and France (clinical trial sample). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The FACE-Q scales that measure appearance of the skin, lips, and facial rhytids (ie, overall, forehead, glabella, lateral periorbital area, lips, and marionette lines), with scores ranging from 0 (lowest) to 100 (highest), and the FACE-Q adverse effects checklists for problems after skin and lip treatment. RESULTS: Of 783 patients recruited, 503 field-test patients (response rate, 90%) and 280 clinical trial participants were studied. The mean (SD) age of the patients was 47.4 (14.0) years in the field-test sample and 47.7 (12.3) years in the clinical trial sample. Most of the patients were female (429 [85.3%] in the field-test sample and 274 [97.9%] in the clinical trial sample). Rasch Measurement Theory analyses led to the refinement of 8 appearance scales with 66 total items. All FACE-Q scale items had ordered thresholds and acceptable item fit. Reliability, measured with the Personal Separation Index (range, 0.88-0.95) and Cronbach α (range, 0.93-0.98), was high. Lower scores for appearance scales that measured the skin (r = -0.48, P < .001), lips (r = -0.21, P = .001), and lip rhytids (r = -0.32, P < .001) correlated with the reporting of more skin- and lip-related adverse effects. Higher scores for the 8 appearance scales correlated (range, 0.70-0.28; P < .001) with higher scores on the core 10-item FACE-Q satisfaction with facial appearance scale. In the pretreatment group, older age was significantly correlated with lower scores on 5 of the 6 rhytids scales (exception was forehead rhytids) (range, -0.28 to -0.65; P = .03 to <.001). Pretreatment patients reported significantly lower scores on 7 of the 8 appearance scales compared with posttreatment patients (exception was skin) (P < .001 to .005 on independent sample t tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The FACE-Q appearance scales and adverse effects checklists can be used in clinical practice, research, and quality improvement to incorporate cosmetic patients' perspective in outcome assessments.

Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the FACE-Q Scales for Patients Undergoing Rhinoplasty.

IMPORTANCE: Rhinoplasty continues to rank among the most popular cosmetic surgical treatments. Measuring what the nose looks like has typically involved the use of observer-reported or physician-reported outcome measures (eg, photographs). While objective outcomes are important, facial appearance is subjective, and asking patients what they think about the appearance of their nose is of paramount importance. The patient perspective can be measured using patient-reported outcome instruments. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and psychometric evaluation of the FACE-Q scales and adverse effects checklist designed to measure rhinoplasty outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A questionnaire was completed by patients recruited between July 13, 2010, and March 1, 2015. Psychometric methods were used to select the most clinically sensitive items for inclusion in item-reduced scales as well as to examine reliability, validity, and ability to detect clinical change. The setting was plastic surgery clinics in the United States, England, and Canada. Participants were preoperative and postoperative patients 18 years or older undergoing rhinoplasty. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Responses and validation measures of the FACE-Q scales and adverse effects checklist. RESULTS: In total, 158 of 169 patients invited to participate in the study were enrolled (response rate, 93.5%). The most common adverse effect was the skin of the nose looking thick or swollen. Rasch measurement theory analysis led to the refinement of a 10-item Satisfaction With Nose Scale and a 5-item Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale. The person separation index and Cronbach α were 0.91 and 0.96, respectively, for the Satisfaction With Nose Scale and 0.89 and 0.96, respectively, for the Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale. All items had ordered thresholds and good item fit. Satisfaction with the nose and nostrils was incrementally lower in participants bothered by specific adverse effects (eg, the skin of the nose looking thick or swollen). Patient satisfaction on the Satisfaction With Nose Scale and the Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale and on 3 additional FACE-Q scales (ie, Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Scale, Psychological Function Scale, and Social Function Scale) was higher after surgery than before surgery (P < .001 for all, independent samples t test). Twenty-three participants who provided preoperative and postoperative data reported improvement on all 5 scales (P ≤ .003 for all). The effect sizes ranged from 0.6 to 2.3. Significant individual-level change was reported by most participants for the Satisfaction With Nose Scale, Satisfaction With Nostrils Scale, Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Scale, and Social Function Scale. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A FACE-Q scales rhinoplasty module can be used in clinical practice, research, and quality improvement to incorporate the patient perspective in outcome assessments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.

Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Orthognathic Surgery and Osseous Genioplasty.

Primary outcomes for orthognathic surgery and genioplasty patients include satisfaction with appearance, improved motor function, and enhanced quality of life. The goal of this study was to assess outcomes among patients undergoing these procedures, and to highlight the potential use of FACE-Q instrument for use in patients with dentofacial deformities. A total of 56 patients presenting for orthognathic surgery and/or osseous genioplasty completed the FACE-Q during preoperative and/or at postoperative visits. FACE-Q scores increased following surgery in satisfaction with facial appearance overall (+24.5, P < 0.01), satisfaction with lower face and jawline (+40.7, P < 0.01), and in all satisfaction with chin items (profile, prominence, shape, and overall). Patients also demonstrated increased social confidence (+8.9, P = 0.29). There was no improvement in psychologic well-being (-0.8, P = 0.92). All 3 surgical groups of patients experienced gains in satisfaction with appearance following surgery. Patients who underwent orthognathic surgery either alone or in combination with genioplasty demonstrated statistically significant improvements in satisfaction with facial appearance overall (P < 0.01 for both groups), whereas patients who underwent genioplasty alone did not (P = 0.13). In addition, patients who underwent orthognathic surgery combined with genioplasty demonstrated greater improvement in satisfaction with chin than patients who underwent genioplasty alone. In conclusion, patients who underwent orthognathic surgery and/or genioplasty demonstrated improvement in appearance and social confidence. The use of this model supports the successful outcomes possible for patients undergoing these procedures.

Satisfaction following Unilateral Breast Reconstruction: A Comparison of Pedicled TRAM and Free Abdominal Flaps.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare patient satisfaction following unilateral pedicled transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) and free abdominal flap reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent unilateral breast reconstruction using pedicled TRAM or free abdominal flaps (muscle-sparing TRAM or deep inferior epigastric perforator flap) and completed the BREAST-Q were identified from 2 prospectively maintained databases. BREAST-Q scores were assessed and compared for Satisfaction with Breasts, Outcome, and Physical Well-being Chest/Abdomen. RESULTS: Of the 138 patients who completed the BREAST-Q, 84 underwent pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction and 54 underwent free abdominal flap reconstruction. Overall, pedicled TRAM flap patients scored higher than free abdominal flap patients on all 4 BREAST-Q scales. This difference reached statistical significance in Satisfaction with Breasts (+7.74; P = 0.02). Similar results were found among patients who completed the BREAST-Q at <3 years postoperation. However, among patients at ≥3 years postoperation, there were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups, with the pedicled flap cohort scoring higher in Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-being Chest and the free abdominal flap cohort scoring higher in Satisfaction with Outcome and Physical Well-being Abdomen scores. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who underwent unilateral pedicled TRAM flap reconstruction experienced greater initial breast satisfaction than patients who underwent unilateral free abdominal flap reconstruction, but satisfaction equalized between the two over time, suggesting that long-term satisfaction may be equivalent between the 2 methods of reconstruction.

Assessing Demographic Differences in Patient-Perceived Improvement in Facial Appearance and Quality of Life Following Rhinoplasty.

BACKGROUND: As rhinoplasty patient demographics evolve, surgeons must consider the impact of demographics on patient satisfaction. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to identify independent demographic predictors of differences in satisfaction with appearance and quality of life following rhinoplasty utilizing the FACE-Q patient-reported outcome instrument. METHODS: Patients presenting for rhinoplasty completed the following FACE-Q scales: Satisfaction with Facial Appearance, Satisfaction with Nose, Social Function, and Psychological Well-being. Higher FACE-Q scores indicate greater satisfaction with appearance or superior quality of life. Pre- and post-treatment scores were compared in the context of patient demographics. RESULTS: The scales were completed by 59 patients. Women demonstrated statistically significant improvements in Satisfaction with Facial Appearance and quality of life while men only experienced significant improvement in Satisfaction with Facial appearance. Caucasians demonstrated statistically significant improvement in Satisfaction with Facial Appearance and quality of life while non-Caucasians did not. Patients younger than 35 years old were more likely to experience enhanced Satisfaction with Facial Appearance and quality of life compared with patients older than 35 years old. Patients with income ≥$100,000 were more likely to experience significant increases in Satisfaction with Facial Appearance and quality of life than patients with incomes <$100,000. CONCLUSIONS: In an objective study using a validated patient-reported outcome instrument, the authors were able to quantify differences in the clinically meaningful change in perception of appearance and quality of life that rhinoplasty patients gain based on demographic variables. The authors also demonstrated that these variables are potential predictors of differences in satisfaction.

Assessing Patient-Reported Satisfaction with Appearance and Quality of Life following Rhinoplasty Using the FACE-Q Appraisal Scales.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with appearance and improved quality of life are primary outcomes in cosmetic surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in patient satisfaction with facial and nose appearance, and quality of life following rhinoplasty. METHODS: Patients presenting for rhinoplasty completed the FACE-Q, a new patient-reported outcome instrument composed of scales that measure outcomes in patients undergoing facial cosmetic procedures. The following FACE-Q scales were used: satisfaction with facial appearance overall, satisfaction with nose, psychological well-being, and social function. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients completed the FACE-Q at the time of their preoperative consultation and/or at postoperative follow-up visits. Among all patients presenting for rhinoplasty, FACE-Q scores (range, 0 to 100) increased following the procedure in satisfaction with facial appearance (+26.5; p < 0.01), psychological well-being (+15.7; p < 0.01), and social function (+13.7; p = 0.03). Satisfaction with nose item scores (range, 1 to 4) all increased significantly from before to after rhinoplasty, including in satisfaction with nose appearance in the mirror (+1.4; p < 0.01), size (+1.1; p < 0.01), shape (+1.5; p < 0.01), profile (+1.6; p < 0.01), and in photographs (+1.6; p < 0.01). Similar results were seen among a subgroup of patients who completed the FACE-Q scales both before and after rhinoplasty. CONCLUSIONS: In an objective study using a validated patient-reported outcome instrument, improvements in satisfaction with facial and nose appearance and quality of life were demonstrated among rhinoplasty patients. This model supports the successful outcomes possible in rhinoplasty. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

FACE-Q scales for health-related quality of life, early life impact, satisfaction with outcomes, and decision to have treatment: development and validation.

BACKGROUND: An ever-growing range of facial cosmetic products and treatments are available, but little clinical research is being performed to determine treatment outcomes from the patient's perspective. The FACE-Q is a patient-reported outcome instrument composed of more than 40 independently functioning scales and checklists. The aim of this article is to describe the development and psychometric evaluation of five new FACE-Q scales. METHODS: FACE-Q scales were developed according to international guidelines for patient-reported outcome instrument development. The following FACE-Q scales and a single symptom checklist (Recovery Early Symptoms) were evaluated in this study: Psychological Wellbeing, Social Function, Satisfaction with Decision to Have Treatment, Satisfaction with Outcome of Treatment, and Early Life Impact of Treatment. Modern and traditional psychometric methods were used to examine reliability, validity, and responsiveness. RESULTS: The sample included 702 participants from three studies. The FACE-Q scales were found to be reliable, valid, and responsive to clinical change. These findings were supported by Rasch measurement theory (e.g., overall chi-square values, p ≥ 0.06; Person Separation Index ≥0.81), traditional psychometric (e.g., Cronbach alpha values ≥0.90) and responsiveness (i.e., significant improvement following face lift and lip treatment) analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The FACE-Q measures concepts and symptoms important to facial aesthetic patients. The five scales and single symptom checklist described here can be used to measure what patients think about cosmetic treatments in a scientifically sound manner. As the cosmetics industry continues to expand, the patient perspective of treatment outcomes should be measured and reported. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, III.