Search

Purpose: Adult acquired buried penis (AABP) is a morbid condition often necessitating surgical intervention. Accurate assessment of pre- and postoperative symptoms is crucial to understand how AABP impacts a patients' quality of life, verify surgical effectiveness, and practice patient-centered care. There is no validated patient-reported outcome instrument specific for AABP evaluation. We undertook a comprehensive review of existing literature on patient-reported outcome instruments post-AABP surgery to highlight the importance of developing a specific tool., Methods: Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis 2020 guidelines, we queried three databases using relevant keywords (e.g., "buried penis repair"). Inclusion criteria were studies that discussed surgical management of AABP with patient-reported outcomes. Pediatric and congenital cases were excluded. Information collected included study design, level of evidence, number of participants included in the study, etiology of buried penis, surgical technique, preoperative or postoperative patient-reported outcomes, and patient-reported outcome instrument used., Results: Initial query identified 998 records. After abstract screening and applying the inclusion or exclusion criteria, a total of 19 articles with 440 patients were included. Eight studies implemented patient-reported outcome instruments. The international index of erectile dysfunction-5 and Likert satisfaction scales were used most frequently. Although all instruments were validated, none were validated in the specific context of AABP surgical intervention., Conclusions: There is considerable heterogeneity within the AABP literature regarding patient symptomatology, postoperative complications, patient-reported outcomes, and instruments used. The results of this study emphasize the need for a patient-reported outcome measure to examine the influence of AABP repair on patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The effects of enhanced recovery protocols and use of tranexamic acid (TXA) to reduce postoperative complications after periareolar and double-incision (DIM) gender-affirming mastectomies have not been previously described. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of our ERP including use of liposomal bupivacaine [Exparel] in these cases, assess the efficacy of TXA in reducing postoperative complications, and compare need for revisionary surgery between periareolar and DI mastectomy techniques., Materials and Methods: A retrospective review from November 2017 to June 2022 was performed. Data were collected on patient demographics, operative data, and postoperative outcomes including complications and revisions. Morphine milligram equivalent was used to assess opioid use after surgery., Results: Overall, 260 patients were included: 240 (92.3%) patients in the DI and 20 (7.7%) patients in the periareolar group. Thirty-five (7.3%) breasts in the DIM group and five (12.5%) breasts in the periareolar cohort developed complications (p = 0.220). Significantly more breasts in the periareolar cohort developed hematomas (12.5% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.011). Sixteen (3.3%) breasts in the DIM group developed seromas. Significantly more breasts in the periareolar group required revisionary surgery (15.0% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.025). Patients who received intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine [Exparel] had fewer opioids intraoperatively (p = 0.019) and at discharge (p < 0.001). Use of TXA did not affect rates of complications including hematoma or seroma., Conclusions: Overall, complication rates for periareolar and DIM are similar. However, the periareolar technique results in a significantly higher rate of hematomas and revisionary surgery. Use of intraoperative liposomal bupivacaine [Exparel] resulted in significantly lower opioid use. Lastly, use of topical TXA did not lower the risk of postoperative hematoma or seroma., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Given that patients with morbid obesity are predisposed to frailty, we sought to determine whether the 5-Factor Modified Frailty Index (mFI-5) predicts postoperative complications following surgery for adult-acquired buried penis, and secondarily, to compare the mFI-5 to body mass index (BMI) and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status as preoperative risk stratification measures., Methods: We included all patients who underwent surgical management for adult-acquired buried penis at an academic Level I trauma center between 2015 and 2023. A manual chart review was performed to collect data on patient demographics, modified frailty index variables, intraoperative data, postoperative outcomes, and complications., Results: A total of 55 patients underwent surgical repair of adult-acquired buried penis, with 26 experiencing postoperative complications (47.3%). Univariable regression analyses revealed that the mFI-5 was a significant predictor of postoperative complications (odds ratio [OR] 3.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.56-7.42, p = .002), ongoing postoperative urinary problems (OR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.02-4.05, p = .045), patient dissatisfaction with outcomes (OR 3.29, 95% CI: 1.35-8.02, p = .009), and persistent postoperative symptoms (OR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.10-5.35, p = .029). There was no significant association between ASA classification and postoperative complications (OR 1.59, 95% CI:.544-4.63, p = .398). Multivariable analysis demonstrated that the mFI-5 was an independent predictor of postoperative complications (OR 5.34, 95% CI: 1.80-15.9, p = .003) when controlling for BMI and age., Conclusion: The mFI-5 is an independent predictor of postoperative complications in patients undergoing surgical repair of adult-acquired buried penis. The simplicity of the index permits efficient preoperative risk stratification of adult-acquired buried penis patients and provides important counseling information that may not be reflected by age or BMI alone., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The hypothesis of this study was that trigeminal nerve stimulation (TNS) or peripheral nerve stimulation (PNS) could improve functional outcomes of peripheral nerve injury in a rat forelimb model when compared to control rats not receiving electrical stimulation (ES). While PNS is known to improve outcomes after nerve surgery, the role of TNS has not been explored., Methods: Lewis rats were trained to perform a reach and grasp task before receiving a 2 mm gap repair of the ulnar and median nerves and randomized into four treatment groups: (1) sham injury, (2) nerve injury with sham ES, (3) nerve injury with PNS, and (4) nerve injury with TNS. Functional motor (median pull force and percent success in motor task) and sensory metrics (forelimb paw withdrawal thresholds) were collected both pre-injury and throughout rehabilitation. Nerves stained using Gomori's trichrome were assessed quantitatively and qualitatively., Results: The sham ES group did not recover their pre-injury baseline functional outcomes. In contrast, the TNS and PNS groups fully recovered following injury, with no difference in functional outcomes between the pre-injury baseline and the final week of rehabilitation (P > 0.05, all). Histomorphology results demonstrated no quantitative difference, but qualitative differences in architecture were evident., Conclusions: Electrical stimulation of the trigeminal nerve or the injured nerve improved the functional outcomes of nerve regeneration in rodents. Histomorphology results of nerves from the TNS group support the proposed central mechanisms. This is an important step in translating this therapy as an adjunct, non-invasive treatment for high, mixed nerve injuries in humans., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2023 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)