Background Unicoronal craniosynostosis is associated with orbital restriction and asymmetry. Surgical treatment aims to both correct the aesthetic deformity and prevent the development of ocular dysfunction. We used orbital quadrant and hemispheric volumetric analysis to assess orbital restriction and compare the effectiveness of distraction osteogenesis with anterior rotational cranial flap (DO) and bilateral fronto-orbital advancement and cranial vault remodeling (FOAR) with respect to the correction of orbital restriction in patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis. Methods A retrospective review of all patients with a diagnosis of unicoronal craniosynostosis and treated with either DO or FOAR from 2000 to 2019 was performed. Preoperative and postoperative total orbital volumes, as well as quadrant and hemispheric volume ratios, were calculated from 3-dimensional head computed tomography scans. Selected preoperative and postoperative orbital measurements, including the maxillary length of the orbit (MLO; zygomaticofrontal suture to the top of zygomatic arch) and the sphenoid length of the orbit (SLO; the top of sphenoid suture to the top of zygomatic arch), were also obtained. Results Data were available for 28 patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis. Mean preoperative total orbital volume was significantly smaller on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (10.94 vs 12.20 cm3, P = 0.04). Preoperative MLO and SLO were significantly longer on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side (MLO: 20.26 vs 17.75 mm, P < 0.001; SLO: 26.91 vs 24.93 mm, P = 0.01). Distraction osteogenesis and FOAR produced significantly different changes in orbital quadrant and/or hemispheric volume ratios on the nonsynostotic side but not on the synostotic side. Conclusions Before correction, patients with unicoronal craniosynostosis have significantly smaller total orbital volumes on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side and significantly greater MLO and SLO on the synostotic side compared with the nonsynostotic side. There is no significant difference between DO and FOAR with regard to correcting the observed orbital restriction in these patients.
RESULTS:A total of 32,622 articles were found in the seven journals. The DS Score ranged from 0.385 to 0.923. The mean score of the top 64 articles was 0.539 with an average citation count of 195 and 9 references. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the most disruptive articles with 50, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgery had the next most with 12, and Annals of Plastic Surgery had 2. There were no randomized control trials with a majority of the studies being technical descriptions or case series. CONCLUSIONS:There are many ways to measure academic success, but there are fewer ways to measure the impact of academic contributions on a field. The DS is a novel measurement that can demonstrate when an article results in a paradigm shift as opposed to just total citation count. When applied to the body of plastic surgery literature, the DS demonstrates that technical innovation and creativity is the most academically impactful. Future evaluations of academic success should include the Disruption Score to measure the quality of academic contributions.
Background Although microsurgery fellowships have existed since the 1980s, there is no established curriculum. Microsurgery fellowships vary greatly in clinical caseload, case diversity, and training resources, and there is no consensus on the appropriate composition of a microsurgery fellowship. This study surveys fellowship directors (FD) and recent microsurgery fellows (MFs), graduates, to describe the ideal microsurgery fellowship program. Methods A 15-item questionnaire was sent to 38 FDs and 90 recent microsurgery fellowship graduates. This questionnaire addressed program attributes, case volumes and compositions, ideal experiences, and time allocation to different fellowship experiences. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, and Chi-squared tests. Results The FD and MF surveys had a response rate of 47 and 49%, respectively. Both MF and FD agreed that exposure to microsurgical breast reconstruction is the most important characteristic of a microsurgery fellowship (p = 0.94). MF ranked replantation and supermicro/lymphatic surgery as the next most important microsurgical cases, while FD ranked the anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap and free fibula flap (p < 0.001). Both agreed that revisional surgery after microsurgical reconstruction is a very valuable fellowship experience (p = 0.679). Both agreed that 1 day of clinic a week is sufficient. Conclusion Microsurgical training programs vary in quality and resources. The ideal microsurgery fellowship prioritized breast reconstruction, head and neck reconstruction, and lower extremity reconstruction. Although microsurgical technical expertise is important, a fellowship should also train in revisional surgeries and clinical decision making.
Supplement, 100th Annual Meeting Display EPostersfor quality improvement. Control entailed ongoing monitoring to ensure progress was sustained following study completion. RESULTS:Our interventions lasted 6 months and included 70 patients. Intraoperative interventions such as standardized trays did not decrease procedure time. Actively striving to advance patients through postoperative milestones during their inpatient stay and creation of an outpatient nursing roadmap that included aspects of inpatient care decreased median length of stay from 67.8 to 44.8 hours. Qualitatively, 77% of patients agreed they felt ready to be discharged when equipped with nursing instruction. No major complications were observed after earlier discharge. CONCLUSION:A systematic DMAIC framework can decrease hospitalization time following unilateral DIEP surgery and spare resources for additional reconstructive patients. Such methodology can potentially further reduce stay and be applied to bilateral reconstruction patients.
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.