Search

Background: Dual venous drainage for anterolateral thigh flaps has been proposed to protect against flap-related complications in head and neck applications. Here we report our experience with single vs dual venous anastomosis during lower extremity free-tissue transfer., Methods: All free anterolateral thigh flaps for lower extremity reconstruction from 2011 to 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. An algorithm was used to determine the type and number of venous anastomoses, emphasizing patient anatomy, venous quality, and size match. Patients were divided into single- and dual-venous-anastomosis groups. Univariate analysis determined differences between the groups. A multivariable analysis identified independent risk factors., Results: Fifty patients met the inclusion criteria. Patient demographics, recipient sites, wound type, and flap characteristics were similar in 1 and 2 vein groups. Average follow-up was 9.6 months. Forty-two percent underwent single venous drainage anastomoses. Mean age was 52.7 years, 78.0% were male, and 60% had defects of the foot and ankle. Increased flap area and early dangling did not increase flap demise. Thirty-three percent of single-drainage patients and 31.0% of dual-drainage patients had a complication. A body mass index of greater than 30 kg/m 2 was a predictor for both flap complication ( P = 0.025) and partial flap loss ( P = 0.031) in univariate analysis. No independent predictors were found in multivariate analysis., Conclusions: The number of venous anastomoses, area, and dangling protocol did not influence outcomes while using our lower extremity vein method. Thoughtful evaluation of venous egress should outweigh the routine use of multiple veins in perforator flap reconstructions of the lower extremity., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: The authors did not receive any funding for this study. None of the authors have a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this article. There are also no commercial associations., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Plastic surgeons have been early adopters of social media, and the efficacy and ethics of this practice have been studied. In addition, plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) training programs have begun using social media to connect with the public, including prospective PRS applicants. The ability of social media to attract prospective residency applicants is unknown. This study aims to examine the influence of social media on prospective residency applicants and their perception of a plastic surgery program., Methods: In the academic years 2018 and 2019, we conducted an anonymous, voluntary survey among applicants applying to both the integrated and independent Harvard PRS residency programs. The survey collected data regarding demographics, social media usage, online information gathering, and PRS programs' social media influence on applicants' perception/rank position of programs., Results: One hundred nine surveys were completed (23%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents reported searching online for information about residency programs. Twenty percent of respondents noted that a residency program's social media platform "influenced their perception of a program or intended rank position of a program" and 72% of those respondents indicated a positive effect on their perception of a program and its rank list position. At least 15% of respondents were concerned that engaging with a program's social media account would attract attention to their own social media accounts., Conclusions: Applicants routinely rely on online resources to gather information regarding prospective residency programs. Fear of attracting attention to their own personal social media pages may limit applicants' engagement with PRS programs on social media. However, residency programs can still utilize social media to deliver important messages, especially as social media usage continues to grow., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)