No abstract

Background Reduction mammaplasty remains critical to the treatment of breast hypertrophy. No technique has been shown to be superior; however, comparison between studies is difficult due to variation in outcome reporting. Objectives The authors sought to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes and outcome measures in reduction mammaplasty. Methods A comprehensive computerized search was performed. Included studies were randomized or nonrandomized controlled trials involving at least 100 cases of female breast hypertrophy and patients of all ages who underwent 1 or more defined reduction mammaplasty technique. Outcomes and outcome measures were extracted and tabulated. Results A total 106 articles were eligible for inclusion; 57 unique outcomes and 16 outcome measures were identified. Frequency of patient-reported and author-reported outcomes were 44% and 88%, respectively. Postoperative complications were the most frequently reported outcome (82.2%). Quality-of-life outcomes were accounted for in 37.7% of studies. Outcome measures were either condition-specific or generic; frequencies were as low as 1% and as high as 5.6%. Five scales were formally assessed in the breast reduction populations. Clinical measures were defined in 15.1% of studies. Conclusions There is marked heterogeneity in reporting of outcomes and outcome measures in the literature. A standardized outcome set is needed to compare outcomes of various reduction mammaplasty techniques. Level of Evidence: 4

Background: Current guidelines for randomized controlled trial reporting do not require authors to justify their choice of time horizon. This is concerning, as the time horizon when an outcome is assessed has important implications for the interpretation of study results, and resources allocated to an investigation. Therefore, this study seeks to examine the standards of time horizon reporting in the plastic surgery literature. Methods: This is a systematic review of plastic surgery randomized controlled trials published within the past 4 years. The MEDLINE database was searched to yield relevant studies. All studies included were English language, prospective, nonpharmaceutical randomized controlled trials, comparing two plastic surgical interventions. Studies were classified into plastic surgery domains, and information regarding study population, time horizon reporting, and justification of chosen time horizon, was extracted. Results: The search retrieved 720 articles, of which 103 were eligible for inclusion. Time horizons were reported as either a standardized time point at which all patients were assessed, or a follow-up duration range, or were not reported at all. Although most studies (85.4 percent) reported a standardized time horizon, the majority (85.4 percent) failed to provide a valid justification to support their selection of time horizon. Conclusions: Clinical investigators failed to justify their choice of time horizon in the majority of published randomized controlled trials. To limit heterogeneity, time horizons for given interventions should be standardized to improve validity of outcome assessments, enable future pooling of results, and increase research efficiency.

This systematic review summarizes the outcome reporting standards in Dupuytren’s disease treatment research. A search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and CINAHL was conducted. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series published between 1997 and 2017, investigating treatment of Dupuytren’s disease with fasciectomy, fasciotomy, or collagenase, were eligible for inclusion. Range of motion was the most commonly reported outcome, appearing in 77% of included studies. Outcomes, such as range of motion, recurrence, and clinical success, were frequently defined, however many different definitions were used. We identified 37 unique measurement methods for range of motion, 28 for recurrence, and 25 for clinical success. Most outcomes were assessed at multiple time points, and only a few studies reported results according to established clinical significance thresholds. Development of a core outcome set will help standardize outcome reporting, and ensure future research in this field is relevant, interpretable, and amenable to systematic review and/or meta-analysis.

Background: On top of preexisting burnout, depression, and anxiety among trainees, the COVID-19 pandemic has introduced novel stressors. The objectives of this study were to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian plastic surgery residents’ practice, wellness, and overall training. Methods: Surveys for program directors and residents were created and disseminated to all English-speaking Canadian plastic surgery residency training programs. Survey results were pooled and presented as a percentage of responses for each question. Results: Response rates were 50% (n = 5/10) and 25% (n = 19/77) for program directors and residents, respectively. All program directors believed that the pandemic has a negative effect on resident wellness, 80% (n = 4/5) of which believed that their residents were coping effectively. They rated program support for resident wellness as neutral or supportive. Most programs (80%; n = 4/5) introduced strategies to support resident well-being. Most trainees (84%; n = 16/19) reported the pandemic as having a negative effect on their well-being, with approximately 50% endorsing worse emotional, social, psychological, and physical wellness, as well as feelings of burnout. Some reported difficulties coping (21%; n = 4/19). Residents felt that their wellness was supported externally by their own resilience (89%; n = 17/19), family members (74%; n = 14/19), friends (74%; n = 14/19), their partner (68%; n = 13/19), or co-residents (53%; n = 10/19). Internal support by their program was rated as neutral or negative (63%; n = 12/19). Conclusions: Our findings of negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wellness of Canadian plastic surgery trainees are concerning. Programs must implement appropriate identification and support strategies to improve resident well-being.