Search

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have evolved to validated questionnaires assessing health-related quality of life. This systematic review evaluates the utilization of PROs in United States plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) clinical trials (CTs). A medical librarian conducted a search strategy for PRS CTs from 2012 to 2022. CTs were identified and assessed for PRO utilization. Summary statistics were performed, and Fisher's exact test was used for subgroup analysis. Of the 3609 studies initially identified, 154 were PRS CTs. Approximately half (80 studies) employed PROs, encompassing 13,190 participants, 95% (12,229) of whom were female. Among the CTs, 37 (48%) were in the field of reconstruction, while 25 (32%) were cosmetic. Pain (35%) and patient satisfaction (24%) were the most common primary outcomes. Validated PROs were the main outcome in 61% of these trials, with the visual analog scale (19%) and BREAST-Q (15%) as the top instruments. Funding was primarily private (34%) or not reported (49%). No significant trend in validated PRO usage was observed over the examined decade. The use of PROs is relevant for healthcare delivery and improvement as they provide insight into the efficacy of treatments from a patient-centered viewpoint. PROs are reported in just over half of PRS CTs, and within those CTs, the use of validated questionnaires is inconsistent. Therefore, emerging CTs should strive to incorporate PRO measures and utilize the existing validated tools to assess novel interventions and ensure that the data reported is objective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Microsurgery is most commonly used in the anastomosis of vessels, flap harvesting, lymphedema, and nerve reconstruction, among others. During the 1920s the first microscope was invented by Nylen and Holmgren, quickly becoming the gold standard for microsurgery. However, technological advances have come forth in the form of exoscopes. A search for full-text articles where using an exoscope was compared with a traditional operating microscope was conducted on the databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The following terms were used to guide our search: Microscope AND exoscope AND plastic surgery; Microscope AND exoscope AND microvascular surgery. Our search yielded 69 studies, of which 12 were included. Five exoscope systems were used by the authors. All studies reported the exoscope as a valid alternative to the standard operating microscope. The exoscope was reported as non-inferior to the operating microscope. Although some studies reported lower quality of image, this did not seem to influence the outcome of surgeries. Newer models may have bridged the gap between the operating microscope's image quality and the exoscope. Superior ergonomics was always reported among the included studies. Based on our search, we conclude that the exoscope is a safe and valid alternative to the operating microscope in plastic surgery. As newer models are now commercially available, these have overcome difficulties in image quality and zoom capabilities, responsible for the main drawbacks of the first exoscope systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is routinely performed prior to breast reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps to provide better surgical planning and improve preoperative decision making. These investigations occasionally result in unexpected findings in otherwise asymptomatic women. Unexpected findings on imaging in a population of women with previous breast cancer or strong breast cancer risk factors can lead to undue stress and anxiety. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of unexpected findings in preoperative CT angiograms and to correlate these with patient and breast cancer characteristics. A retrospective chart review from May 2008 to December 2012 was performed reviewing all patients who underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Radiology reports of their preoperative CT angiograms, details of unexpected findings, patients' past medical and cancer history, additional radiological investigations, outcomes, and interventions were reviewed. In total, 360 patients met the inclusion criteria for the study. Sixty-four percent of the patients who underwent CTA imaging had incidental findings. Further imaging was suggested in 48% of this group. The most common incidentalomas were hepatic (47%), bone (24%), and renal (20%). “Incidentalomas” were associated with patients' underlying comorbidities ( p = 0.001) and age ( p = 0.01). “Radiographically suspicious incidentalomas” were associated with the underlying comorbidities ( p = 0.001). The radiologists most commonly suggested investigation methods such as ultrasound (41%), another CT (28%), bone scan (21%), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI; 14%). No incidentalomas were found to be malignant on further recommended investigation in this study and no breast cancer reconstruction was delayed as a result of the discovery of incidentalomas or their subsequent investigations. It is important to counsel patients of the possibility of incidental findings and the resulting sequelae prior to CTA investigations for breast cancer reconstruction and involve them in shared decision making if additional investigations are required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]