Search

Mortality rates following major lower extremity amputations (LEAs) 30 days-365 days postoperative have decreased, but 5-year rates remain high at 40.4%-70%. These data may not reflect recent advances in peripheral arterial disease (PAD) care, and comorbidities of chronic PAD may lead to mortality more frequently than the amputation itself. Mortality rates between diabetic and nondiabetic patients were also analyzed.MethodsThe California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development hospital database was queried for patients admitted January 1, 2007-December 31, 2018. ICD-9-CM codes identified patients with vascular disease and an amputation procedure.ResultsThere were 26,669 patients. The 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 5-year major LEA mortality rates were 4.82%, 8.62%, 12.47%, and 18.11%, respectively. Weighted averages of 30-day, 90-day, 1-year, and 5-year major LEA mortality rates in the literature are 13%, 15.40%, 47.93%, and 60.60%, respectively. Mortality risk associated with vascular disease after amputation (hazard ratio = 22.07) was 11 times greater than risk associated with amputation-specific complications from impaired mobility (hazard ratio = 1.90; P < 0.01). Having diabetes was associated with lower mortality at 30 days, 90 days, and 1 year (P < 0.01) but not at 5 years (P = 0.22).ConclusionsThis study suggests that people may be living longer after their major LEA than was previously thought. This study suggests that patients' PAD may play a bigger role in contributing to their mortality than complications from loss of mobility postamputation. Although having diabetes was associated with lower postamputation mortality, the difference was no longer significant by 5 years.

BackgroundMedical students receive limited exposure to the field of plastic surgery because most students will not rotate in plastic surgery, especially those at schools without dedicated plastic surgery residency programs. This study aimed to create and validate a plastic surgery learning module for medical students to dispel media-propagated myths and misrepresentation of the breadth of plastic surgery and equip students with referral-making capabilities.MethodsThe plastic surgery learning module was created using Articulate Storyline 360 (New York, N.Y.). Student participants were recruited from a single medical school across all four classes. Pre- and postmodule surveys were administered via Qualtrics (Provo, Utah). Scores were computed for the general surgical knowledge section and for each specialty referral question.ResultsTwelve students completed usability testing and edits were subsequently made to optimize the module. The module took on average 66 minutes to complete. Sixty-five students (19 MS1, 16 MS2, 15 MS3, 15 MS4) completed efficacy testing. In the premodule survey, students were nearly 100% accurate in identifying breast-related referrals, unlike pediatric/craniofacial (avg: 68%), reconstruction/microsurgery (avg: 64%), and hand/upper extremity (avg: 30%) referrals. Students of all classes exhibited significant improvement in all testing categories except for the breast category, with the most improvement in the hand referrals category. Prior exposure to plastic surgery (57%) correlated with higher premodule hand (P = 0.003) and breast/cosmetic (P = 0.01) referral scores.ConclusionThe plastic surgery learning module shows promise to be a comprehensive yet affordable and time-efficient tool for medical students to learn about basic surgical principles and the scope of plastic surgery.

Background Today, patients can access a myriad of information sources regarding plastic surgery procedures prior to meeting with a surgeon. Despite their widespread use, the role of these sources in a patient's decision-making remains undefined. We hypothesized that the physician remains the key information source for patients making surgical decisions in plastic surgery, but that other sources may deliver important insights and prove helpful to varying degrees. We also explored motivations for this outside information search and any differences in perceived value among patients. Methods We administered a survey regarding various information sources to our breast reconstruction, reduction, and abdominoplasty patients. Responses were compared between surgery groups and demographic groups. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to determine the impact of patient characteristics on helpfulness rank of different sources. Results Survey results were obtained from 58 patients, of whom 10 (17.2%) had abdominoplasty, 35 (60.3%) breast reconstruction, and 13 (22.4%) breast reduction. The most popular information sources prior to the first surgical appointment were Internet searches (56.9%) and family/friends/other patients (39.7%). After the initial appointment, the most useful sources were plastic surgeons (84.5%), and the Internet (36.2%). Most patients (73.5%) still sought outside information after their appointment. On a Likert-type scale of helpfulness, plastic surgeons ranked 4.28/5, followed by the web-based patient education platform, 3.73 and the Internet, 3.6. A total of 63% of participants listed plastic surgeons as their single most important source of information. In ordinal logistic regression analysis, non-white race was significantly associated with higher rank of surgeon helpfulness (p < 0.05). Relative to low-income patients, income $50-100k (p < 0.05) and $100k+ (p < 0.05) were associated with lower rank of surgeon helpfulness. Conclusions Most patients seek outside information prior to visiting with a surgeon from the Internet, social media, or family and friends. Patients consider plastic surgeons their most valuable information source overall, though still in need of supplementation for varying reasons. Additionally, certain demographic differences affect patient perception of information sources, and this is an important factor for surgeons to consider as they approach educating patients.