Since the piezoelectric quality of bone was discovered in 1957, scientists have applied exogenous electrical stimulation for the purpose of healing. Despite the efforts made over the past 60 years, electronic bone growth stimulators are not in common clinical use. Reasons for this include high cost and lack of faith in the efficacy of bone growth stimulators on behalf of clinicians. The purpose of this narrative review is to examine the preclinical body of literature supporting electrical stimulation and its effect on bone properties and elucidate gaps in clinical translation with an emphasis on device specifications and mechanisms of action. When examining these studies, trends become apparent. In vitro and small animal studies are successful in inducing osteogenesis with all electrical stimulation modalities: direct current, pulsed electromagnetic field, and capacitive coupling. However, large animal studies are largely unsuccessful with the non-invasive modalities. This may be due to issues of scale and thickness of tissue planes with varying levels of resistivity, not present in small animal models. Additionally, it is difficult to draw conclusions from studies due to the varying units of stimulation strength and stimulation protocols and incomplete device specification reporting. To better understand the disconnect between the large and small animal model, the authors recommend increasing scientific rigor for these studies and reporting a novel minimum set of parameters depending on the stimulation modality.
Orthopedic fractures have a significant impact on patients in the form of economic loss and functional impairment. Beyond the standard methods of reduction and fixation, one adjunct that has been explored since the late 1970s is electrical stimulation. Despite robust evidence for efficacy in the preclinical arena, human trials have mixed results, and this technology is not widely accepted. The purpose of this review is to examine the body of literature supporting electrical stimulation for the purpose of fracture healing in humans with an emphasis on device specifications and stimulation protocols and delineate a minimum reporting checklist for future studies of this type. We have isolated 12 studies that pertain to the administration of electrical stimulation for the purpose of augmenting fracture healing in humans. Of these, one was a direct current electrical stimulation study. Six studies utilized pulsed electromagnetic field therapy and five used capacitive coupling. When examining these studies, the device specifications were heterogenous and often incomplete in what they reported, which rendered studies unrepeatable. The stimulation protocols also varied greatly study to study. To demonstrate efficacy of electrical stimulation for fractures, the authors recommend isolating a fracture type that is prone to nonunion to maximize the electrical stimulation effect, a homogenous study population so as to not dilute the effect of electrical stimulation, and increasing scientific rigor in the form of pre-registration, blinding, and sham controls. Finally, we introduce the critical components of minimum device specification reporting for repeatability of studies of this type.
Background Gender disparities are pervasive in academic plastic surgery. Previous research demonstrates articles authored by women receive fewer citations than those written by men, suggesting the presence of implicit gender bias. Objectives We aim to describe current citation trends in plastic surgery literature and assess gender bias. We expected women to be cited less frequently than their male peers. Methods Articles published between 2017 and 2019 were collected from eight representative plastic surgery journals stratified by impact factor. Names of primary and senior authors of the fifty most cited articles per year per journal were collected and author gender was determined via online database and internet search. Median number of citations by primary and senior author gender were compared via Kruskal-Wallis test. Results Among 1167 articles, women wrote 27.3% as primary author and 18% as senior author. Women-authored articles were cited as often as those authored by men (p>0.05) across all journal tiers. Articles with a female primary and male senior author had significantly more citations than articles with a male primary author (p=0.038). Conclusions No implicit gender bias was identified in citations trends, a finding unique to plastic surgery. Women primary authors are cited more often than male primary authors despite women comprising a small fraction of authorship overall. Additionally, variegated authorship pairings outperformed homogenous ones. Therefore, increasing gender diversity within plastic surgery academia remains critical.
Background The value of a fully trained microsurgeon dedicated to a laboratory setting at an academic institution is largely unknown. Microsurgery training lacks a national standard despite its highly complicated nature. Our study aims to evaluate the impact of a single laboratory-dedicated microsurgeon on the microsurgical training of integrated plastic surgery residents and collaborative efforts in research. Method We devised a three-faceted microsurgical training curriculum, including a collaborative multi-institutional microsurgery course, novel high-fidelity simulator models, and a dedicated microsurgeon. We cataloged grant funding achieved through support to other divisions' protocols. Time, in hours, spent on training and the number of anastomoses completed with the microsurgical educator in a laboratory setting over a 4-year period (2017–2021) were evaluated. Resident independence scores were collected from attending microsurgeons to quantify the translation of microsurgical training. Results Purchasing and maintenance costs of rats in our rodent facility decreased by $16,533.60 as 198 rats were replaced by our models. The residents who participated in our novel microsurgical training program were able to independently perform anastomoses in the OR by their postgraduate year 6. Additionally, the surgical support offered by our laboratory-dedicated microsurgeon led to a total of $24,171,921 in grant funding between 2017 and 2020. Conclusion Hiring an expert microsurgical educator to train residents in a laboratory has proved promising in accelerating microsurgical mastery. Novel training modules, alternatives to animal models, save resources in housing and animal costs. The addition of a research-oriented-microsurgeon has improved collaborative efforts to advance a range of surgical fields.
Symptomatic neuromas are an all-too-common complication following limb amputation or extremity trauma, leading to chronic and debilitating pain for patients. Surgical resection of symptomatic neuromas has proven to be the superior method of intervention, but traditional methods of neuroma resection do not address the underlying pathophysiology leading to the formation of a future symptomatic neuroma and lead to high reoperation rates. Novel approaches employ the physiology of peripheral nerve injury to harness the regeneration of nerves to their advantage. This review explores the underlying pathophysiology of neuroma formation and centralization of pain signaling. It compares the traditional surgical approach for symptomatic neuroma resection and describes three novel surgical strategies that harness this pathophysiology of neuroma formation to their advantage. The traditional resection of symptomatic neuromas is currently the standard of care for amputation patients, but new techniques including the regenerative peripheral nerve interface, targeted muscle reinnervation, and intraosseous transposition have shown promise in improving patient pain outcomes for postamputation pain and residual limb pain. Symptomatic neuromas are a chronic and debilitating complication following amputation procedures and trauma, and the current standard of care does not address the underlying pathophysiology leading to the formation of the neuroma. New techniques are under development that may provide improved patient pain outcomes and a higher level of care for symptomatic neuroma resection.
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.