Background: Hindfoot alignment on 2D radiographs can present anatomical and operator-related bias. In this study, software designed for weightbearing computed tomography (WBCT) was used to calculate a new 3D biometric tool: the Foot and Ankle Offset (FAO). We described the distribution of FAO in a series of data sets from clinically normal, varus, and valgus cases, hypothesizing that FAO values would be significantly different in the 3 groups. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 135 data sets (57 normal, 38 varus, 40 valgus) from WBCT (PedCAT; CurveBeam LLC, Warrington, PA) were obtained from a specialized foot and ankle unit. 3D coordinates of specific anatomical landmarks (weightbearing points of the calcaneus, of the first and fifth metatarsal heads and the highest and centermost point on the talar dome) were collected. These data were processed with the TALAS system (CurveBeam), which resulted in an FAO value for each case. Intraobserver and interobserver reliability were also assessed. Results: In normal cases, the mean value for FAO was 2.3% ± 2.9%, whereas in varus and valgus cases, the mean was −11.6% ± 6.9% and 11.4% ± 5.7%, respectively, with a statistically significant difference among groups (P < .001). The distribution of the normal population was Gaussian. The inter-and intraobserver reliability were 0.99 +/-0.00 and 0.97 +/-0.02 Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that the FAO is an efficient tool for measuring hindfoot alignment using WBCT. Previously published research in this field has looked at WBCT by adapting 2D biometrics. The present study introduces the concept of 3D biometrics and describes an efficient, semiautomatic tool for measuring hindfoot alignment. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

The forehead flap is one of the oldest recorded surgical techniques for nasal reconstruction. As the gold standard for nasal soft tissue reconstruction, the forehead flap provides a reconstructive surgeon with a robust pedicle and large amount of tissue to reconstruct almost any defect. Modifications provided by masters like Burget and Menick have only increased the utility of this exceptional flap. Maintaining an axial pattern, utilizing the pedicle ipsilateral to the defect, extending the flap at right angles with caution when extra length is needed, using a narrow pedicle, and early subperiosteal dissection are the guiding principles for forehead flap reconstruction of the nose. In addition, lining defects can be addressed simply and reliably with a folded forehead flap.

This study demonstrated no significant differences in the rate of complications or material compliance. The total complication rate was 4 percent, with seroma and wound infection being the most common complications. The authors' preliminary findings indicate no significant difference between implant/expander-based reconstructions using AlloDerm and those using DermaMatrix.

Nasal reconstruction continues to be a formidable challenge for most plastic surgeons. This article provides an overview of nasal reconstruction with brief descriptions of subtle nuances involving certain techniques that the authors believe help their overall outcomes. The major aspects of nasal reconstruction are included: lining, support, skin coverage, local nasal flaps, nasolabial flap, and paramedian forehead flap. The controversy of the subunit reconstruction versus defect-only reconstruction is briefly discussed. The authors believe that strictly adhering to one principle or another limits one's options, and the patient will benefit more if one is able to apply a variety of options for each individualized defect. A different approach to full-thickness skin grafting is also briefly discussed as the authors propose its utility in lower third reconstruction. In general, the surgeon should approach each patient as a distinct individual with a unique defect and thus tailor each reconstruction to fit the patient's needs and expectations. Postoperative care, including dermabrasion, skin care, and counseling, cannot be understated.

Reconstruction of the posterior trunk depends on careful analysis of the tissue defects, host issues, and application of functional anatomy. The majority of wounds can be reconstructed after thorough débridement with a vascularized muscle flap.