Wilson, Renita

AbstractObjectiveThe profunda artery perforator (PAP) flap has gained popularity in head and neck reconstruction with a favorable donor site providing a relatively hidden scar and the ability to harvest a large amount of pliable tissue with consistent vascular anatomy. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of this PAP flap in head and neck reconstruction.Data SourcesPUBMED, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar (January 1948‐February 2022).Review MethodsA systematic review of the English language literature was conducted for studies with at least 3 patients 18 years or older undergoing head and neck reconstruction utilizing the PAP. Study quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the MINORS scoring system. Main analysis endpoints were flap failure rate, donor site morbidity, and complication rate.ResultsNine articles and 206 total PAP flaps were included. The rate of flap‐related and medical complications was 33%, with only 2 (0.97%) instances of complete flap failure. Other complications included partial flap failure (10, 4.86%) and donor site wound complications (12, 5.83%). A total of 16 flaps (7.77%) required subsequent revision in the operating room. Average MINORS score of the studies suggested a moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionBased on limited quality evidence, this review suggests that the PAP flap is a safe and feasible tool for head and neck reconstruction, with comparable complication and success rates as other free flaps. Further large‐scale studies are warranted.

Abstract Goals/Purpose Perioperative management of estradiol therapy varies considerably among plastic surgeons performing aesthetic surgeries. This study aimed to review available literature regarding perioperative management of estradiol therapy in aesthetic surgery patients, and the risk it poses for developing VTE in the perioperative period. Methods/Technique A literature search was performed using online databases to identify studies evaluating VTE in aesthetic surgery patients taking oral contraceptives (OCPs) or hormone replacement therapy (HRT), and transgender patients on feminizing hormone therapy undergoing non-flap feminization surgery (facial feminization and breast augmentation procedures). Reported outcomes were extracted from these studies and summarized. Results/Complications A systematic review of the literature yielded 225 studies. Five of these studies met inclusion criteria. One study that was excluded, referenced an article that met inclusion criteria, which was ultimately included in our review for a total of six studies, representing 3,635 patients. Conclusion Data regarding perioperative management of estrogen therapy is limited in the literature, and standardized guidelines for aesthetic surgery patients have not been elucidated. This has led to inconsistencies in how estrogen is managed for elective, cosmetic procedures. Further research is needed to determine standardized practice guidelines. In the meantime, case-by-case evaluation of surgical appropriateness should continue. Surgeons should also consider risk-mitigating strategies, such as a focus on patient education, more intentional patient questioning regarding estrogen-containing product use, a preoperative coagulability workup for patients with a personal or family history indicative of possible coagulopathy, and specialty-wide efforts to create an aesthetics database and evidence-based guidelines.