Ochoa, Shari A.

BACKGROUND The management of skin cancers has evolved with the development of Mohs micrographic surgery and a greater emphasis on surgical training within dermatology. It is unclear whether these changes have translated into innovations and contributions to the reconstructive literature. OBJECTIVE To assess contributions from each medical specialty to the cutaneous head and neck oncologic reconstructive literature. METHODS The authors conducted a systematic review of the head and neck reconstructive literature from 2000 through 2015 based on a priori search terms relating to suture technique, linear closure, advancement, rotation, transposition and interpolation flaps, and identified the specialty of the senior authors. RESULTS The authors identified 74,871 articles, of which 1,319 were relevant. Under suture technique articles, the senior authors were primarily dermatologists (58.2%) and plastic surgeons (20.3%). Under linear closure, the authors were dermatologists (48.1%), plastic surgeons (22.2%), and otolaryngologists (20.4%). Under advancement and rotation flaps, the senior authors were plastic surgeons (40.5%, 38.9%), dermatologists (38.1%, 34.2%), and otolaryngologists (14.4%, 21.6%). Under transposition and interpolation flaps, the senior authors were plastic surgeons (47.3%, 39.4%), dermatologists (32.3%, 27.0%), and otolaryngologists (15.3%, 23.4%). CONCLUSION The primary specialties contributing to the cutaneous head and neck reconstructive literature are plastic surgery, dermatology, and otolaryngology.

BACKGROUND There have been several investigations into possible health risks of surgical smoke exposure, and it has previously been associated with harboring pathogens and carcinogens. Patients in the authors' practice have expressed that the odor from the smoke created by electrosurgical equipment is unpleasant. OBJECTIVE The authors sought to determine if smoke evacuation decreases patient perception of smoke created by electrosurgery during Mohs surgery and if it subsequently improves patient satisfaction with their surgical experience by minimizing the associated odor. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty patients were enrolled in this comparative trial. Smoke evacuation was used during closure but not during Mohs stages. Patients were queried regarding their experience and preferences during and at the end of the procedure. RESULTS 100% of patients reported the perception of a burning odor during removal of Mohs stages, compared with 40% reporting the perception of a burning odor during closure. During the Mohs stages, 66.6% of patients reported the odor as unpleasant compared with 16.6% of patients during closure. There were no statistically significant differences in patient perceptions when stratified by age, sex, or surgical site. CONCLUSION The authors believe that using a wall suction smoke evacuation system is simple and can result in a more pleasant experience for patients undergoing Mohs surgery.