Search

Background: Hematoma after non-oncologic breast surgery is a common concern requiring expeditious treatment. The purpose of this study is to perform an evidence-based review of perioperative factors that may contribute to hematoma in non-oncologic breast procedures., Methods: A comprehensive literature review was performed of non-oncologic breast procedures: breast augmentation, single-stage augmentation-mastopexy, mastopexy, and reduction. In total, 28 studies highlighting incidence and potential risk factors for hematoma were included; overall level of evidence was established regarding each perioperative factor examined and hematoma rate., Results: The hematoma rate in breast augmentation ranges from 0.2 to 5.7%. There is inconclusive evidence to support an association between pocket choice or incision location and hematoma rate (Level III) and no evidence of an association between implant type and hematoma (Level V). Single-stage augmentation-mastopexy may have a lower hematoma rate than augmentation alone (Level II). Hematoma may increase the risk of capsular contracture (Level III). In breast reduction, the hematoma rate ranges from 1.0 to 9.3%. Evidence of an association between incision choice and hematoma rate is inconclusive (Level III). Use of epinephrine-containing solution, pedicle choice, and resection weight do not appear to affect hematoma rate (Level V, II, and II, respectively). The use of postoperative drains and ketorolac do not affect the incidence of hematoma (Level I and III, respectively). Intraoperative hypotension may increase the risk of hematoma after breast reduction (Level III)., Conclusions: Breast hematomas are not uncommon complications. Current literature lacks ample evidence for risk factors for hematoma after non-oncologic breast procedures, warranting further, high-powered investigations., Level of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 ., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.)

Background: Rhinoplasty is a popular aesthetic and reconstructive surgical procedure. It is one of the top five surgical cosmetic procedures performed worldwide., Objectives: To evaluate global trends in rhinoplasty research spanning 20 years between 1994 and 2013., Methods: The top 15 plastic surgery and otolaryngology journals containing rhinoplasty research were determined using impact factors (IF). A database of rhinoplasty articles from 1994 to 2013 was created to include the following classifications: IF, authors' geographic location, study design, level of evidence (LOE), and pertinence to aesthetic or reconstructive rhinoplasty. Productivity index and productivity share were calculated for each region., Results: A total of 1244 rhinoplasty articles were included in the database. The mean IF among the 15 journals increased from 0.75 in 1994 to 1.90 in 2013 (p < 0.001). The majority of rhinoplasty publications were clinical in study design (91.0%) and were predominantly of weaker LOE (level IV: 42.4%; level V: 33.2%). The USA led in proportion of total rhinoplasty publications by volume and productivity index (37.9%, 41.2%), followed by Asia (29.1%, 28.2%) and Western Europe (18.8%, 18.2%). The majority of articles published were classified as aesthetic (60.4%), whereas 30.6% were reconstructive; there was a significant increase in the proportion of aesthetic rhinoplasty articles published per year (p = 0.009)., Conclusions: The USA has consistently been the most productive country in rhinoplasty research. However, its lead has diminished over the last 20 years. The trend in rhinoplasty research appears to be toward aesthetic rather than reconstructive topics. Attention should be given to producing stronger LOE studies., Level of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Introduction: Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic surgery performed in the United States (US) annually. Analysis of Google Trends (GT) data may give plastic surgeons useful information regarding worldwide, national, and regional interest for breast augmentation and other commonly performed aesthetic surgeries., Methods: Data were collected using GT for breast augmentation and associated search terms from January 2004 to May 2017. Case volume was obtained from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) annual reports for the calendar year 2005-2016., Results: Trend analysis showed that total search term volume for breast augmentation and breast implants gradually decreased worldwide and in the US over the study period while the search term boob job slowly increased. Univariate linear regression demonstrated a statistically significant positive correlation between average annual Google search volume of "breast augmentation" and the annual volume of breast augmentations performed in the US according to ASPS data (R 2  = 0.44, p = 0.018). There was no significant correlation between national volume of breast augmentations performed and search volume using the terms "breast implants" or "boob job" over time (p = 0.84 and p = 0.07, respectively). In addition, there appears to be country specific variation in interest based on time of year and peaks in interest following specific policies., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first and only analysis of GT data in the plastic surgery literature to date. To that end, this study highlights this large and potentially powerful data set for plastic surgeons both in the US and around the world., Level of Evidence V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .