Background: The use of appropriate preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis decreases the risk of surgical site infections (SSI); however, the breadth of plastic surgery procedures makes it challenging to ensure appropriate use for each unique procedure type. Currently, plastic surgeons lack a cohesive and comprehensive set of evidence-based guidelines (EBG) for surgical prophylaxis. We sought to profile the perioperative antibiotic prescribing patterns for plastic surgeons in British Columbia to investigate if they are congruent with published recommendations. In doing so, we aim to determine risk factors for antibiotic overprescribing in the context of surgical prophylaxis. Methods: A literature review identifying EBG for antibiotic prophylaxis use during common plastic surgery procedures was performed. Concurrently, a provincial survey of plastic surgery residents, fellows, academic and community plastic surgeons was used to identify their antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing practices. These findings were then compared to recommendations identified from our review. The compliance of the provincial plastic surgery community with current EBG was determined for 38 surgical scenarios to identify which clinical factors and procedure types were associated with unsupported antibiotic use. Results: Within the literature, 31 of the 38 categories of surveyed plastic surgery operations have EBG for use of prophylactic antibiotics. When surgical procedures have EBG, 19.5% of plastic surgery trainees and 21.9% of practicing plastic surgeons followed recommended prophylaxis use. Average adherence to EBG was 59.1% for hand procedures, 24.1% for breast procedures, and 23.9% for craniofacial procedures. Breast reconstruction procedures and contaminated craniofacial procedures were associated with a significant reduction in adherence to EBG resulting in excessive antibiotic use. Conclusion: Even when evidence-based recommendations for antibiotic prophylaxis exist, plastic surgeons demonstrate variable compliance based on their reported prescribing practices. Surgical procedures with low EBG compliance may reflect risk avoidant behaviors in practicing surgeons and highlight the importance of improving education on the benefits of antibiotic prophylaxis in these clinical situations.
Sickle cell disease is an inherited hemoglobinopathy associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Reports suggest a high sickle cell disease burden among the indigenous Tharu population of Nepal, who for centuries have inhabited regions where malaria is endemic. Unfortunately, health care resources are limited and often inaccessible for Tharu individuals suffering from sickle cell disease. We conducted a large-scale screening effort to estimate the prevalence of Hb S (HBB: c.20A>T) among the Tharu population and delivered community-based education sessions to increase sickle cell disease awareness. A total of 2899 Tharu individuals aged 6 months to 40 years in the rural district of Dang in Western Nepal were screened using a sickling test, of whom, 271 [9.3%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 8.3-10.4%] screened positive for Hb S. Those who screened positive were offered diagnostic gel electrophoresis testing. Of the 133 individuals who underwent diagnostic testing, 75.9% (n = 101) were confirmed to be Hb AS heterozygotes, 4.5% (n = 6) were confirmed to be Hb SS homozygotes and 19.5% (n = 26) were false positives. These findings support a large burden of sickle cell disease among the Tharu population and highlight the importance of appropriate resource allocation and management. With a positive predictive value of 80.0% (95% CI: 73.0-87.0%), the sickling test in conjunction with raising local sickle cell disease awareness may be a simple and sustainable way to promote access to health resources.
Background Since the association between anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and textured breast implants has led to the recall of Allergan Biocell (Irvine, CA, USA) devices, plastic surgeons have been faced with the challenge of caring for patients with these implants in situ. Cosmetic and reconstructive surgeons have been contacting patients with these implants in order to encourage them to follow up and discuss the most appropriate risk reduction strategies. Objectives To evaluate patient concerns about the risk of breast implant associated ALCL and compare management differences between cosmetic and reconstruction patients. Methods A retrospective review was performed of 432 patients with macro textured implants that presented to clinic after being contacted (121 reconstructive and 311 cosmetic). These records were analyzed for their presenting concerns, surgery wait times and management plans. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the cohorts and odds ratios were computed to determine the association between patient concerns and their choice of management. Results After consultation, 59.5% of the reconstruction cohort and 49.5% of the cosmetic cohort scheduled implant removal or exchange. The reconstructive population had a higher rate of ALCL concern (62.7%), however both cohorts had a significant odds ratio demonstrating an expressed fear of ALCL likely contributed to their subsequent clinical management (1.66 OR cosmetic, 2.17 OR reconstructive). Conclusions Although the risk of ALCL appears to be more concerning to the reconstructive population, both cohorts were equally motivated to have their implants removed. Informing patients about their ALCL risk is crucial to ensure a patient supported risk reduction plan.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.