No abstract

No abstract

Summary: We report successful restoration of quadriceps function following contralateral obturator to lateral branch of the femoral nerve transfer (with intervening autograft) in two patients with multilevel lumbosacral root avulsions, resulting in severe unilateral motor and sensory deficits. Three years postoperatively, patient 1 had regained Medical Research Council grade 3 knee extension with the ability to extend against 10 pounds of resistance. At 28 months postoperatively, patient 2 had regained Medical Research Council grade 2 knee extension. Treatment options for severe lumbosacral plexus injuries with multiple root avulsions are limited. This approach offers a new option for these devastating injuries.

Background: Nerve reconstruction techniques for lumbosacral plexus (LSP) injuries vary. There are no clear treatment guidelines available, and summative evaluations of the literature discussing these surgeries are lacking. For these reasons, this investigation aimed to systematically review and consolidate all available literature discussing surgical interventions for LSP injuries and cohesively present patient-reported and objective postoperative outcomes. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global (via Proquest.com), and ClinicalTrials.gov databases according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. After title and abstract screening, identified articles were read in full and selected for inclusion based on prespecified criteria. Results: Our literature search identified 8683 potential citations, and after duplicate removal, abstract screening, and full-text review, 62 studies remained meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. Outcomes were extracted according to the location of injury and type of surgical repair. Injuries were classified into isolated femoral nerve injuries, isolated obturator nerve injuries, isolated sciatic nerve injuries, and multilevel LSP injuries. Surgical treatment was further classified into exploration with neurolysis, direct repair, nerve grafting, and nerve transfer surgery. Conclusions: Although results vary based on the location of the injury and the surgical technique used, nerve grafts and transfers demonstrated reasonable success in improving functional and pain outcomes. Overall, isolated femoral and obturator nerve injuries had the best outcomes reported with surgical treatment. Furthermore, incomplete sciatic nerve and multilevel LSP injuries had more reported surgical options and better outcomes than complete sciatic nerve injuries.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Objectives Following abdominoperineal resection (APR), primary closure of the perineal defect is often possible. Some patients, however, require flap reconstruction. Identifying these patients preoperatively is critical to facilitate comprehensive patient counseling and optimize surgical efficacy. Methods A retrospective review of patients undergoing APR over a 10‐year period was performed to identify predictive factors for patients requiring reconstruction with a vertical rectus abdominis myocutaneous (VRAM) flap as opposed to primary closure. Student's t and Fisher's exact tests were utilized for statistical analysis. Results A total of 158 patients underwent APR, 29 of whom (18%) required a VRAM flap. A higher average skin resection area was seen among those requiring flap reconstruction (P < .0001). Flap reconstruction was also associated with current smoking status (P = .0197), anal tumor location (P < .0001), and neoadjuvant radiation (P = .0457). Although not statistically significant, average tumor diameter was larger in the VRAM flap group compared with the primary closure group. Conclusions While the appropriate method of closure for those undergoing APR should be considered on an individual case basis, patients who smoke, have a tumor located at the anus, or require large skin resection are more likely to need flap reconstruction.

Background: Outpatient plastic surgery at office-based surgery facilities (OBSFs) and ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) has become increasingly prevalent over the past 30 years. Importantly, historical data are inconsistent regarding the safety outcomes of these venues, with advocates for both citing supporting studies. This investigation’s purpose is to provide a more definitive comparative evaluation of outcomes and safety for outpatient surgery performed in these facilities. Methods: The most common outpatient procedures were identified using the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons database between 2008 and 2016. Outcomes were analyzed for OBSFs and ASCs. Patient and perioperative information was also analyzed using regression analysis to identify risk factors for complications. Results: A total of 286,826 procedures were evaluated, of which 43.8% were performed at ASCs and 56.2% at OBSFs. Most patients were healthy, middle-aged women categorized as American Society of Anesthesiologists class I. The incidence of adverse events was 5.7%, and most commonly included antibiotic requirement (1.4%), dehiscence (1.3%), or seroma requiring drainage (1.1%). Overall, there was no significant difference in adverse events between ASCs and OBSFs. Age, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, body mass index, diabetes, smoking history, general anesthesia, certified registered nurse anesthetist involvement, operative duration, noncosmetic indications, and body region were associated with adverse events. Conclusions: This study provides an extensive analysis of common plastic surgery procedures performed in an outpatient setting in a representative population. With appropriate patient selection, procedures are safely performed by board-certified plastic surgeons in ambulatory surgery centers and office-based settings, as evidenced by the low incidence of complications in both environments. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.