Purpose Studies have shown that bracing is an effective treatment for patients with idiopathic scoliosis. According to the current classification, almost all braces fall in the thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) category. Consequently, the generalization of scientific results is either impossible or misleading. This study aims to produce a classification of the brace types. Methods Four scientific societies (SOSORT, SRS, ISPO, and POSNA) invited all their members to be part of the study. Six level 1 experts developed the initial classifications. At a consensus meeting with 26 other experts and societies’ officials, thematic analysis and general discussion allowed to define the classification (minimum 80% agreement). The classification was applied to the braces published in the literature and officially approved by the 4 scientific societies and by ESPRM. Results The classification is based on the following classificatory items: anatomy (CTLSO, TLSO, LSO), rigidity (very rigid, rigid, elastic), primary corrective plane (frontal, sagittal, transverse, frontal & sagittal, frontal & transverse, sagittal & transverse, three-dimensional), construction—valves (monocot, bivalve, multisegmented), construction—closure (dorsal, lateral, ventral), and primary action (bending, detorsion, elongation, movement, push-up, three points). The experts developed a definition for each item and were able to classify the 15 published braces into nine groups. Conclusion The classification is based on the best current expertise (the lowest level of evidence). Experts recognize that this is the first edition and will change with future understanding and research. The broad application of this classification could have value for brace research, education, clinical practice, and growth in this field.

No abstract

Background Small recalcitrant defects of the mandible and maxilla may be secondary to tumor, trauma, infection, and congenital origin. Vascularized bone grafting has been shown to effectively manage these defects; however, donor sites are limited. The vascularized medial femoral condyle (MFC) provides adequate cortical cancellous bone with the option of a skin island, consistent anatomy, and minimal donor site morbidity. This article outlines the use of the MFC flap for maxillomandibular reconstruction. Methods A retrospective chart review of patients who required segmental maxillomandibular reconstruction with the MFC flap was conducted. A total of 9 patients (5 men and 5 women) with an average age of 45.3 years were identified. The etiology of the defects, flap sizes, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Results Three patients had osteoradionecrosis of the neomandible after irradiation of the free fibula reconstruction, 3 patients had defects after cancer extirpation (1 mandible, 2 maxillary), 1 patient had a maxillary defect from trauma, and 2 patients had a residual cleft palate defect. All defects failed initial treatment with nonvascularized bone grafts. The average dimensions of the MFC flaps were 1.2 × 2.5 × 4 cm. Two of 9 flaps included a skin island. Eight flaps survived completely, but 1 patient suffered from flap failure requiring debridement and resulted in an oroantral fistula. Four patients received endosseous dental implants. Average time to union was 6.7 months, and average time to implant was 6.75 months. The average follow-up time was 24.9 months. Conclusions The MFC flap is useful in the reconstruction of small segmental maxillomandibular defects and for the salvage of a neomandible after osteoradionecrosis. The MFC flap provides a reliable platform for endosseous dental implants and serves as an alternative source of vascularized bone reconstruction in the head and neck.

Background There is little written about the scope of rural plastic surgery within the United States. Approximately 25 million people do not have immediate access to a plastic surgeon. Most areas are designated as rural, and this lack of specialty care can result in suboptimal care. Physicians are more likely to move to a rural area if they have prior life experience with rural areas, but exposure to rural plastic surgery in residency training is scarce. We attempted to examine the practice characteristics of rural plastic surgeons within the United States to (a) to better define the average rural plastic surgery practice and (b) to highlight the broad scope of practice of the rural plastic surgeon to educate both hospital administrators and our physician colleagues of the impact and benefit a plastic surgeon can have on a health system. Methods A survey was e-mailed to surgeons identified as rural plastic surgeons who practiced in communities with fewer than 50,000 people not located in a metropolitan area. Thirty-four surgeons were identified and 12 responded to the survey. Results Respondents on average were 56 years old and had practiced for 14.3 years. At the time of the survey, 33% practiced in a hospital-employed group practice, and 33% operated in a hospital that is part of a health system. Seventy-five percent did not complete fellowship training, but 67% believed that fellowship training would be beneficial to someone interested in rural plastic surgery. Seventy-five percent recommended hand surgery as the most beneficial fellowship. Eighty-three percent had prior experiences with rural surgery before starting their practice. Average case volume ranged from 150 to more than 1000 cases per year and spanned the spectrum of plastic surgery. Potential barriers to practicing rural plastic surgery included call responsibility and facility limitations. Conclusions A career in rural plastic surgery offers great variety encompassing the spectrum of plastic surgery. Most agreed that hand fellowship would be the most beneficial fellowship. Most had prior experience with rural surgery before seeking a career in rural plastic surgery, highlighting the importance of increasing awareness of these opportunities.