Back to Authors

Shrout, Max

Mayo Clinic

Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, AZ.

Citations 3

Secondary Synostosis After Spring-Mediated Cranioplasty for Sagittal Synostosis
Shrout, Max A., Watmore, Trey D. , Jukic, Alma , Singh, Davinder , Shrout, Max, Singh, Davinder J

The Cleft Palate Craniofacial Journal | December 8, 2025 | Volume: 63 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 2989-2995

10.1177/10556656251405356 Get It

Objective To evaluate the incidence and characteristics of secondary synostosis following spring-mediated cranioplasty (SMC) for nonsyndromic sagittal craniosynostosis. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Single tertiary pediatric hospital. Patients/Participants Ten patients with isolated sagittal craniosynostosis who underwent primary SMC between 2021 and 2023. Patients with syndromic diagnoses or prior cranial surgery were excluded. Interventions SMC was performed using 2 to 3 stainless-steel springs following sagittal strip craniectomy. Springs were typically removed 3 to 4 months postoperatively. Follow-up included review of clinical photographs, radiographs, and operative records. Main Outcome Measures Change in cephalic index (CI) from preoperative to postoperative assessment and occurrence of secondary suture fusion, particularly coronal synostosis. Results Mean age at surgery was 4 months (range, 3-6 months). Mean CI improved from 68.5 to 79 following expansion. Three patients (30%) developed left unicoronal synostosis (UCS) during the perioperative period prior to spring removal. One patient required secondary coronal suturectomy for significant frontal asymmetry, while 2 were observed without intervention. Conclusions Secondary synostosis, particularly UCS, may represent an underrecognized sequela of SMC. Altered biomechanical forces or asymmetric cranial remodeling during distraction may contribute to this finding. Larger, multicenter studies with longitudinal imaging are warranted to determine incidence, risk factors, and preventive strategies.
The Future of Robotics in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Payne, Camryn, Martinez, Casey , Spronsen, Nicole Van , Shrout, Max A., Morris, Bryn E., Casey, William J., Rhee, Daniel H. , Reece, Edward, Yi, Johnny , Rebecca, Alanna M. , Payne, Cynthia S. , Van Spronsen, Nicole, Shrout, Max, Casey, William, Rhee, Daniel, Rebecca, Alanna, Payne, Camryn S , Payne, Camryn, Jungbauer, Walter N

Annals of Plastic Surgery | May 1, 2025 | Volume: 94 | Issue: 5S | Pages: S421-S424

10.1097/sap.0000000000004278 Get It

Abstract Robots have been used effectively in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) for reconstruction. The utilization of robotics in all surgical specialties is expanding with the goal of offering the most appropriate patient-centered care possible, especially in complex multidisciplinary cases. Despite the safety, efficiency, and reproducibility of robotics in PRS, there is a paucity of required and formalized training in PRS residency programs. The ACGME and industry published guidelines were investigated. Robotic surgery case logs of Mayo Clinic Arizona General Surgery residents were analyzed with attention to equivalency certification (EQ). Over the past 5 years, the equivalency certification from Intuitive (Sunnyvale, CA) was obtained by 30% of all general surgery residents at our institution (range, 0–100). The case numbers to obtain the equivalence certification are industry recommendations, and proficiency is determined by the program director. The ACGME does not mandate robotics training in general surgery residency. According to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), trainees must complete 20 console cases and 10 bedside cases to become industry certified. With respect to training and advancing the field, PRS residents could successfully obtain certification in their residency programs. The minimum case requirement recommended by SAGES is not burdensome and can ensure robotic privileges in PRS practice immediately following graduation. By improving the training for minimally invasive robotic surgery in plastic surgery, patients and healthcare systems benefit from improved quality of life outcomes and decreased postoperative length of stay, which results in less strain on our entire medical system.
Trends in Medicare Reimbursement for the Top 20 Surgical Procedures in Craniofacial Trauma
Kandi, Lyndsay A. , Jarvis, Tyler L. , Shrout, Max A., Thornburg, Danielle A. , Howard, Michael A., Teven, Chad M. , Shrout, Max, Ellis, Marco F.

Journal of Craniofacial Surgery | December 30, 2022 | Volume: 34 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 247-249

10.1097/scs.0000000000008840 Get It

Background: Research regarding financial trends in craniofacial trauma surgery is limited. Understanding these trends is important to the evolvement of suitable reimbursement models in craniofacial plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for the top 20 most utilized surgical procedures for facial trauma. Methods: The 20 most commonly utilized Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for facial trauma repairs in 2018 were queried from The National Summary Data File from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Reimbursement data for each procedure was then extracted from The Physician Fee Schedule Lookup Tool. Changes to the United States consumer price index (CPI) were used to adjust all gathered data for inflation to 2021 US dollars (USD). The average annual and the total percent change in reimbursement were calculated for the included procedures based on the adjusted trends from the years 2000 to 2021. Results: From 2000 to 2021, the average reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 16.6% after adjusting for inflation. Closed treatment of temporomandibular joint dislocation and closed treatment of nasal bone fractures without manipulation demonstrated the greatest decrease in mean adjusted reimbursement at −48.7% and −48.3%, respectively, while closed treatment of nasal bone fractures without stabilization demonstrated the smallest mean decrease at −1.4% during the study period. Open treatment of nasal septal fractures with or without stabilization demonstrated the greatest increase in mean adjusted reimbursement at 18.9%, while closed treatment of nasal septal fractures with or without stabilization demonstrated the smallest increase at 1.2%. The average reimbursement for all closed procedures in the top 20 decreased by 19.3%, while that for all open procedures decreased by 15.5%. The adjusted reimbursement rate for all top 20 procedures decreased by an average of 0.8% each year. Conclusions: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to comprehensively evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement for facial trauma surgical repairs. Adjusting for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for the top 20 most commonly utilized procedures has largely decreased from 2000 to 2021. Consideration of these trends by surgeons, hospital systems, and policymakers will be important to assure continued access to meaningful surgical facial trauma care in the United States.