Search

Introduction: Spinal anesthesia (SA) is commonly used within the specialties of orthopedic surgery, obstetrics and gynecology, spine surgery, and general surgery, and offers several benefits over general anesthesia (GA). However, SA is used much less frequently in plastic surgery. This review analyzed currently existing data on SA use across various surgical specialties and compared the benefits and complications of SA to those of GA, to assess its utility and potential for more widespread use in plastic surgery., Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases to evaluate the utility of SA in plastic surgery. Indications, contraindications, and data on the use of SA across various surgical specialties were reviewed. Benefits, complications, and cost-effectiveness were also assessed. Finally, the utility of SA in plastic surgery was evaluated based on the available literature., Results: SA has been shown to yield several benefits and fewer risks than GA, including a higher possibility of early discharge, decreased costs, better pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting control, and decreased risk of deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism., Conclusion: Although commonly used for procedures across various surgical specialties such as obstetrics and gynecology, urology, and orthopedic surgery, SA is less frequently used within plastic surgery. Plastic surgery procedures that would benefit from the use of SA include those below the umbilicus such as liposuction, lower extremity procedures, and perineal procedures, and owing to its benefits, we recommend that SA be used more often within plastic surgery under appropriate clinical circumstances., (Copyright © 2024 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Currently, there are several methods of achieving maxillomandibular fixation (MMF), each with its unique operative considerations and subsequent patient outcomes and complications. In this study, we reviewed the literature to evaluate and compare all MMF methods., Methods: A systematic review of all MMF types was conducted and post-operative outcome data were analyzed and compared among the different types. Conventional Erich arch bars were compared to hybrid arch bars, MMF screws, and eyelet interdental wiring. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to determine the mean differences, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with a statistical significance of P < 0.05., Results: Among the 4234 articles identified, 24 were included, and 17 were meta-analyzed. Time to achieve MMF (-43.38 min; 95% CI, -58.20 to -28.56; P < 0.001), total operative time (-30.33 min; 95% CI, -61.05 to 0.39; P = 0.05), incidence of wire puncture injuries and glove perforations (0.11; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.30; P < 0.001), and incidence of poor oral hygiene (0.08; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.28; P < 0.001) were lower for alternative MMF interventions compared to those of the conventional Erich arch bars., Conclusions: Alternative MMF methods required shorter operative time to achieve MMF and demonstrated other increased efficiencies of practice such as shorter total operative time and decreased glove perforations, when compared to conventional Erich arch bars. If a patient is a candidate for MMF, the presented alternative MMF techniques should be considered depending on the clinical context and availability of institutional resources., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Given the consequences of delayed treatment and diagnosis of craniosynostosis, this study reviews the literature on sociodemographic risk factors and disparities associated with delayed craniosynostosis treatment., Design: A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A literature search of PubMed/Medline and Embase was performed by two independent reviewers. Included studies discussed craniosynostosis health disparities. Demographic characteristics and outcomes were analyzed., Setting: Not applicable., Patients: Patients with craniosynostosis., Interventions: Standard surgical intervention for craniosynostosis., Results: Our literature search yielded 273 studies, of which 18 were included for analysis. Included studies represented data from 31 256 U.S. patients with craniosynostosis. Sixty percent of patients (n = 16 510) were White, 13.8% were Hispanic/Latino, 6.2% were Black/African American, 1.3% were Asian, 0.3% were American Indian or Alaska Native, and 0.1% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Average age at surgery was 6.36 months for White patients, 10.63 months for Black patients, and 9.18 months for Hispanic patients. Minority racial and/or ethnic status was a risk factor for delayed presentation, and increased incidence of open surgery, complication rates, hospital charges, operative time, anesthesia duration, and hospital length of stay. Government-funded health insurance was associated with delayed intervention and increased complications., Conclusions: Minority craniosynostosis patients experience delays in intervention and increased complication rates. Our findings highlight the importance of expedited and equitable referrals, screenings, and treatment, and the need for a standardized approach to investigating longitudinal demographic and outcomes data in this population.