Hemangioma continues to be commonly misused to describe any type of vascular anomaly, and terminological imprecision is prevalent among both medical and surgical fields. Inaccurate designation of the vascular anomaly is associated with an increased risk of erroneous management.
Although conservative management of lymphedema remains the first-line approach, surgery is effective in select patients. The purpose of this study was to review the literature and develop a treatment algorithm based on the highest quality lymphedema research. A systematic literature review was performed to examine the surgical treatments for lymphedema. Studies were categorized into five groups describing excision, liposuction, lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA), vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT), and combined/multiple approaches. Studies were scored for methodological quality using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies (MINORS) scoring system. A total of 69 articles met inclusion criteria and were assigned MINORS scores with a maximum score of 16 or 24 for noncomparative or comparative studies, respectively. The average MINORS scores using noncomparative criteria were 12.1 for excision, 13.2 for liposuction, 12.6 for LVA, 13.1 for VLNT, and 13.5 for combined/multiple approaches. Loss to follow-up was the most common cause of low scores. Thirty-nine studies scoring > 12/16 or > 19/24 were considered high quality. In studies measuring excess volume reduction, the mean reduction was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86.2-107%) for liposuction, 33.1% (95% CI: 14.4-51.9%) for LVA, and 26.4% (95% CI: - 7.98 to 60.8%) for VLNT. Included excision articles did not report excess volume reduction. Although the overall quality of lymphedema literature is fair, the MINORS scoring system is an effective method to isolate high-quality studies. These studies were used to develop an evidence-based algorithm to guide clinical practice. Further studies with a particular focus on patient follow-up will improve the validity of lymphedema surgery research.
Objective The virtual interview for residency and fellowship applicants has previously been utilized preliminarily in their respective processes. The COVID-19 pandemic forced many programs to switch to a virtual interview process on short notice. In the independent plastic surgery process, which was underway when the pandemic started, applicants had a heterogeneous experience of in-person and virtual interviews. The purpose of this study was to assess if applicants prefer a virtual interview experience to an in-person interview as well as determine if virtual interview applicants had a different opinion of a program compared to the in-person interview applicants. Design/Setting/Participants The 2019 to 2020 applicants who interviewed at the Indiana University Independent Plastic Surgery program were administered an anonymous online survey about their interview experience at our program. Results Our survey response was 60% (18/30). The in-person interview group ( n = 10) rated their overall interview experience higher than the virtual interview group ( n = 8) 8.8 vs 7.5 (p = 0.0314). The in-person interview group felt they became more acquainted with the program, the faculty, and the residents more than the virtual group (4.7 vs 3.25, p < 0.0001) (4.3 vs 3.25, p = 0.0194) (4.3 vs 2.75, p < 0.0001). The majority of applicants favored in-person interviews (16/18, 88.9%). The in-person interview group spent significantly more money on their interview at our program compared to the virtual interview group ($587 vs $0, p < 0.0001). Conclusion Our study demonstrated that the virtual interview process was an efficient process for applicants from both a financial and time perspective. However, the virtual interview process left applicants less satisfied with their interview experience. The applicants felt they did not become as acquainted with the program as their in-person counterparts. The virtual interview process may play a large role in residency and fellowship applications in the future, and programs should spend time on how to improve the process.
Background:Lymphedema is the chronic enlargement of tissue due to inadequate lymphatic function. Diagnosis is made by history and physical examination and confirmed with lymphoscintigraphy. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of lymphoscintigraphy for the diagnosis of lymphedema and to determine characteristics of patients with false-negative tests.Methods:Individuals referred to our lymphedema program with “lymphedema” between 2009 and 2016 were analyzed. Subjects were assessed by history, physical examination, and lymphoscintigraphy. Patient age at presentation, duration of lymphedema, location of disease, gender, previous infections, and lymphedema type were analyzed.Results:The study included 227 patients (454 limbs); lymphedema was diagnosed clinically in 169 subjects and confirmed by lymphoscintigraphy in 162 (117 primary, 45 secondary; 96% sensitivity). Fifty-eight patients were thought to have a condition other than lymphedema, and all had negative lymphoscintigrams (100% specificity). A subgroup analysis of the 7 individuals with lymphedema clinically, but normal lymphoscintigrams, showed that all had primary lymphedema; duration of disease and infection history were not different between true-positive and false-negative lymphoscintigram results (P = 0.5). Two patients with a false-negative test underwent repeat lymphoscintigraphy, which then showed lymphatic dysfunction consistent with lymphedema.Conclusion:Lymphoscintigraphy is very sensitive and specific for lymphedema. All patients with false-negative studies had primary lymphedema. A patient with a high clinical suspicion of lymphedema and a normal lymphoscintigram should be treated conservatively for the disease and undergo repeat lymphoscintigraphy.
Introduction Deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap is a common method of breast reconstruction. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) postoperative protocols have been used to optimize patient outcomes and facilitate shorter hospital stays. The effect of patient expectations on length of stay (LOS) after DIEP has not been evaluated. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether patient expectations affect LOS. Methods A retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2020. All patients were managed with the same ERAS protocol. Patients were divided in Group I (early expectations) and Group II (standard expectations). Group I patients had expectations set for discharge postoperative day (POD) 2 for unilateral DIEP and POD 3 for bilateral DIEP. Group II patients were given expectations for POD 3 to 4 for unilateral DIEP and POD 4 to 5 for bilateral. The primary outcome variable was LOS. Results The study included 215 DIEP flaps (45 unilateral and 85 bilateral). The average age was 49.8 years old, and the average body mass index (BMI) was 31.4. Group I (early expectations) included 56 patients (24 unilateral DIEPs, 32 bilateral). Group II (standard expectations) had 74 patients (21 unilateral, 53 bilateral). LOS for unilateral DIEP was 2.9 days for Group I compared with 3.7 days for Group II (p = 0.004). Group I bilateral DIEP patients had LOS of 3.5 days compared with 3.9 days for Group II (p = 0.02). Immediate timing of DIEP (Group I 42.9 vs. Group II 52.7%) and BMI (Group I 32.1 vs. Group II 30.8) were similar (p = 0.25). Conclusion Our study found significantly shorter hospital stay after DIEP flap for patients who expected an earlier discharge date despite similar patient characteristics and uniform ERAS protocol. Patient expectations should be considered during patient counseling and as a confounding variable when analyzing ERAS protocols.
Purpose. Lymphedema is progressive arm swelling from lymphatic dysfunction which can occur in 30% patients undergoing axillary dissection/radiation for breast cancer. Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) is performed in an attempt decrease the risk of lymphedema in patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND). The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of ILR in preventing lymphedema rates in ALND patients.Methods. An institutional review board-approved retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent ILR from 2017 to 2019. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative and pathologic findings, number of LVAs, limb measurements, complications, and followup were recorded and analyzed. Student's sample t-test, Fisher's exact test, and ANOVA were used to analyze data; significance was set at p \ 0.05. Results. Thirty-three patients were included in this analysis. Three patients (9.1%) developed persistent lymphedema, and two patients (6.1%) developed transient arm edema that resolved with compression and massage therapy. A significant effect was found for body mass index and the number of lymph nodes taken on the development of lymphedema (p \ 0.01).
Many lesions can masquerade as infantile hemangioma, the most common tumor of infancy. We describe an infant with pilomatrixoma mimicking hemangioma. The patient presented at 8 months of age with an 1.2-cm, red, asymptomatic lesion of the right ear. The mass was noted at 4 months of age and subsequently enlarged. Ultrasonography demonstrated hypervascularity "consistent with infantile hemangioma," and the infant was observed. At 12 months of age, the lesion continued to expand and became ulcerated; it was excised, and histopathology showed pilomatrixoma. Diagnostic confusion was caused by atypical features of this pilomatrixoma that overlapped with infantile hemangioma: onset in infancy, ulceration, red color, and fast flow on imaging. Deviation from the predictable clinical features of an infantile hemangioma should prompt consideration for other types of pediatric lesions, including pilomatrixoma.
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.