Background Increased video-chatting, stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic, has been correlated with increased appearance concerns. Initial lockdown restrictions correlated with a decrease in aesthetic/cosmetic plastic surgery case volumes. Objectives We aim to delineate public interest in aesthetic procedures surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic via Google Trends (GT). We hypothesize that because of the pandemic, public interest in plastic surgery procedures increased, especially localized above the shoulder. Methods Trends in the US for given search terms and volumes were gathered via Google Trends between January 2015 to March 2021. The search volumes were normalized, and a bivariate regression analysis of panel data was then applied to the aggregate trendlines to determine if a statistically significant change in search volume occurred following the stay-at-home orders. Results The following search terms had statistically significant (p < 0.000) increases in search volumes after February 2020: blepharoplasty, Botox, brachioplasty, breast implant removal, breast reduction, brow lift, buccal fat removal, hair transplantation, lip augmentation, mentoplasty, otoplasty, platysmaplasty, rhinoplasty, and thighplasty. Chi-squared analysis demonstrated a statistically significant association (Chi-squared = 4.812, p = 0.028) between increases in search volume and above the shoulder procedures. Conclusions Public interest in above the shoulder surgical procedures showed a statistically significant increase following February 2020 compared to below the shoulder procedures. Continued examination of specific procedure trends, as well as determining correlations with more accurate procedural datasets, will provide increased insight into consumers’ mindsets and to what extent video conferencing plays on the public’s interest in pursuing aesthetic surgery.
Background: Abdominoperineal resection is used to treat a variety of colorectal pathologies. Traditionally, the vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous flap has been most commonly used for reconstruction. Here, we explore the role of the profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap for perineal reconstruction. Methods: A prospectively maintained database was retrospectively analyzed to identify patients who had undergone perineal reconstruction with a pedicled PAP flap. Parameters of interest included age, sex, body mass index, primary diagnosis, comorbidities, and history of radiation, and postoperative complications. Results: Fifteen patients (5 men and 10 women) with a median age of 52 years (interquartile range, 48.5-61.5 years) were included in the study. Median body mass index was 26.3 kg/m 2 (interquartile range, 24.0-29.3 kg/m 2 ). Patients underwent abdominoperineal resection for treatment of rectal cancer (n = 9, 60.0%), recurrent anal squamous cell carcinoma (n = 3, 20.0%), and Crohn's disease (n = 3, 20.0%). Twelve patients (80.0%) underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Eight patients (53.3%) experienced a total of 10 complications (2 major and 8 minor). The most common complication was donor (n = 3, 20.0%)/recipient (n = 3, 20.0%) site wound dehiscence. Stable soft tissue coverage was achieved in all patients. Conclusions: The PAP flap provides stable soft tissue coverage of perineal defects with a low donor-site morbidity. This flap should be strongly considered in the reconstructive algorithm when approaching perineal defects.
Background Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is known to increase the risk of multiple adverse outcomes after breast reconstruction. In the context of delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction, PMRT is typically conducted after placement of subpectoral (SP) tissue expanders. With the re-emergence of prepectoral (PP) reconstruction, there are little data assessing the outcomes of PP reconstruction in breasts receiving PMRT. We compared postoperative outcomes of PMRT patients undergoing delayed-immediate, autologous breast reconstruction with placement of tissue expanders in either the PP or SP plane. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted on all consecutive patients who underwent delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction and received PMRT at either the Stanford University or the Johns Hopkins University Hospitals between January 2009 and December 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative information, and oncologic data were collected for all patients. Complications were collected and analyzed after stage 1 surgery, between 30 days of stage 1 and up to stage 2 surgery, and after stage 2 surgery. Multivariable regressions were used to determine predictors of 1 or more complications. Results A total of 71 patients (73 breasts) were included. Prepectoral reconstruction comprised of 52.2% of the cohort, and the remaining 47.8% were SP reconstructions. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups, except for premastectomy radiation, which was more prevalent in the PP cohort (P = 0.010). Complications were similar between cohorts after stage 1 surgery (P = 0.420), between stages 1 and 2 (P = 0.100), and after stage 2 (P = 0.570). There were higher rates of skin necrosis in the SP cohort between stages 1 and 2 (PP: 2.6%, SP: 20%, P = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed body mass index to be the only predictor of complication (P = 0.041). The mean number of revisionary surgeries was higher in the SP cohort (PP: 0.8 vs SP: 1.9, P = 0.002). The mean follow-up was 385.5 days and similar between groups (P = 0.870). Conclusions Rates of overall complication were similar between PP and SP expander placement. However, in SP reconstructions, skin necrosis was significantly higher between stages 1 and 2. The patients in the SP cohort also underwent a greater number of revisionary surgeries, although overall rates of pursuing any revisionary surgery were similar between groups.
Background Subjective online physician evaluation is an important component of patient decision-making. Understanding reviews may improve satisfaction and build positive online reputation. Objectives Our objective was to analyze and compare the top predictive factors driving patient satisfaction across the most popular plastic surgery procedures. Methods Online reviews were analyzed from RealSelf, Yelp, and Google for the five highest-rated plastic surgeons of the six metropolitan areas. Blank, non-English, consultation, duplicate, and unrelated reviews were excluded. Data from free-text reviews included physician rating, patient-reported reasons for rating, procedure, and complications. Univariate analysis was performed to compare predictive factors of online ratings. Results 11,078 reviews were included. RealSelf the highest average rating (4.77), while Yelp had the lowest (4.66). Reviews in Miami, Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago were mostly published on RealSelf, while Houston and Los Angeles most used Google and Yelp, respectively. Reconstructive procedures were rated significantly higher than cosmetic procedures (p = 0.035). Aesthetic appearance was the strongest predictor of rating across all procedures. Buccal fat removal (98.8%) and abdominoplasty (98.1%) had highest satisfaction, while Brazilian butt lift had the lowest (88.2%) (p < 0.001). Additional significant contributors included staff interaction, bedside manner, health outcomes, complications, and postoperative care (p < 0.001). Conclusions While aesthetic outcome is an important predictor of satisfaction, other aspects of care, such as bedside manner and staff interaction, provide an important foundation of support. Excellent patient-surgeon communication and postoperative care may mitigate patient dissatisfaction and elicit high-satisfaction online patient reviews.
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.