Search

Background: Historically, breast-conserving surgery may not be pursued when the oncologic deformity is too significant and/or not tolerant of radiotherapy. Reconstruction using recruitment of upper abdominal wall tissue based on the intercostal artery perforating vessels can expand breast conservation therapy indications for cases that would otherwise require mastectomy. This report aims to describe the expanded use of the intercostal artery perforator (ICAP) as well as detail its ease of adoption., Methods: All patients who underwent ICAP flaps for reconstruction of partial mastectomy defects at a single institution were included. Demographic data, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Intercostal artery perforator flap outcomes are compared with standard alloplastic reconstruction after mastectomy., Results: Twenty-seven patients received ICAP flaps compared with 27 unilateral tissue expanders (TE). Six cases included nipple-areolar reconstruction, and 6 included skin resurfacing. The average defect size was 217.7 (30.3-557.9) cm 3 . Plastic-specific operative time was significantly longer in the ICAP cohort ( P < 0.01) with no difference in total operative time ( P > 0.05). Length of stay was significantly longer, and major postoperative complications were significantly more common in TE patients ( P < 0.01, P > 0.05). Seven TE patients required outpatient opiate refills (26%) versus 1 ICAP patient (4%) ( P = 0.02). One ICAP patient required additional surgery. Patients reported satisfaction with aesthetic outcomes. Average follow-up in the ICAP cohort was 7 months., Conclusions: Lumpectomy reconstruction using ICAP flaps can effectively expand breast conservation therapy indications in resection of breast skin, nipple-areola, or large volume defects. This technique is adoptable and of limited complexity. Enhancing breast-conserving surgery may improve outcomes compared with mastectomy reconstruction. Intercostal artery perforator patients may require fewer opioids, shorter hospital stays, and lower operative burden., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Plastic surgeons have an increased risk for the development of musculoskeletal disorders because of frequent poor ergonomics of the operating room. This study characterizes selected plastic surgery procedures, with an attempt to identify high-risk procedures and procedural components as well as the impact of biofeedback on surgical ergonomics., Methods: A commercially available posture training device was used to initially record neck and spine positioning and later to send biofeedback to prompt surgeons to correct posture. Device data were correlated with in-person observations to characterize factors associated with more time spent in the slouched/nonneutral cervical and thoracic spine posture., Results: The proportion of time spent in the upright position during surgery was significantly different among male and female participants, level of training, participant height, in the sitting versus nonsitting positioning (P < 0.001), with loupes use, and if there was more than an 8-inch height difference between 2 participants (mean, 0.70 ± 0.285). Using the device intervention, all participants spent a larger proportion of operating time upright. Half of these improvements in posture were statistically significant. While in feedback mode, participants experienced shorter and more frequent periods of slouching/nonneutral posture. When comparing the same participant performing the same procedure with and without device biofeedback, 72.2% of participants spent more time in the upright/neutral posture during the surgery when the device was sending feedback., Conclusions: Biofeedback devices used in the operating room can lead to improved surgical posture, which may translate to reduction of workplace injuries, and overall physician health. This study found that a commercially available posture training device and sitting stools in the operating room could significantly improve physician cervical and thoracic spine posture., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: No authors have any relevant conflict of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Medical students pursuing plastic surgery training must overcome multiple challenges to successfully match in such a highly coveted subspecialty. This adversity is amplified in applicants from medical schools without a home plastic surgery residency program and academic division. There is a paucity of data on the advantage of medical students applying from an institution with a home residency program. Applicant data from the past 5 years were accessed from the Association of American Medical Colleges Electronic Residency Application Services statistics form. Individual home programs of successfully matched applicants were collected from plastic surgery residency websites. A survey was distributed to 32 students pursuing specialty residencies from home medical schools without a plastic surgery residency. Evaluation of a subset of incoming plastic surgery interns revealed that 72% of matched applicants attended home medical institutions with plastic surgery residency programs. Seventy-seven percent of survey respondents felt strongly that students at institutions with home residency programs had a significant advantage. The current COVID pandemic is changing the landscape of subinternships and bringing to light the disadvantage students face without home residency programs. The development of virtual subinternships, online mentorship, and selection of students for subinternships from geographic areas without home programs may help address some disparities in educational opportunities. Continuing these virtual programs and offering preferential help to disadvantaged medical students permanently is an avenue for the field of plastic surgery to be a leader in diversity and inclusion., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)