Suchyta, Marissa

Background Aesthetic outcomes of unilateral cleft lip repairs have important psychosocial implications for patients who are heavily influenced by social perceptions. Online crowdsourcing offers the unique potential to efficiently recruit large numbers of laypeople to assess public perception. The aim of this study was to use the online crowdsourcing platform Mechanical Turk to compare the postoperative outcomes of Fisher, Millard, and Mohler cleft lip repair techniques. Methods Two hundred fifty-four participants were recruited through Mechanical Turk to evaluate 29 cropped and deidentified photographs of children, 8 photographs were controls without cleft lips and 21 were children with unilateral cleft lips who had undergone Fisher, Millard, or Mohler repairs (7 in each group). Respondents were asked whether a scar was present, whether they would be personally satisfied with the surgical result and used a Likert scale from 1 to 5 to rate overall appearance, scar severity, and nasal symmetry. Results Fewer respondents reported that a scar was present when assessing postoperative photographs of Fisher repairs (70.3 ± 8.6%) compared with Millard (92.0 ± 1.5%) or Mohler (88.8 ± 3.1%) repairs. Average rating of scar severity was also lower for Fisher (1.9) compared with Millard (2.6) or Mohler (2.6) repairs. Average ratings of nose symmetry, general appearance, and satisfaction with operative result were not statistically significantly different between the repair groups. Conclusions This study demonstrates the potential of online crowdsourcing to assess public perception of plastic surgery outcomes. The Mechanical Turk platform offers a reduction in selection bias, ease of study design, and enhanced efficiency of large-scale participant recruitment. Results indicate that the Fisher repair led to the most favored aesthetic outcomes compared with the Millard and Mohler techniques, particularly with regard to scar severity. Crowdsourcing is a powerful tool to assess layperson perception of plastic surgery outcomes and can be used to better guide surgical decision-making.

Background: Face transplantation can offer functional and aesthetic restoration to patients who have exhausted their reconstructive options, improving quality of life and psychosocial integration. Ethical issues in face transplantation abound, including questions of patient selection and evaluation before transplantation. To date, there has been no study of ethicists’ opinions regarding face transplantation. Methods: An online survey of attendees of the 2015 International Conference on Clinical Ethics Consultation (n = 401) assessed ethicists’ opinions about face transplantation. Questions examined the risk-to-benefit ratio of immunosuppression; permissibility of face transplantation in subpopulations (including children and blind patients); donor-recipient age, sex, and ethnicity mismatches; and ethical oversight. Results: Most ethicists (84 percent) agreed that it is permissible to perform a face transplantation on an adult in the absence of clear medical contraindications. Most respondents also agreed that it is permissible to perform a face transplantation on a child (62 percent) or a blind patient (61 percent), yet demonstrated less consensus regarding the permissibility of performing a face transplantation on patients with an increased risk of immune rejection. Respondents were generally supportive of age, sex, and ethnicity mismatches, with 43 percent indicating that it is permissible to have a sex mismatch. The majority answered that face transplantation should be covered by federal insurance (74 percent). Conclusions: This study provides insight into clinical ethicists’ views regarding face transplantation. Most ethicists support the ethical permissibility of face transplantation, and did not have concerns about age, sex, and ethnicity mismatches. These findings highlight emerging areas of consensus regarding the ethical permissibility of face transplantation.

Background: Various vascular pedicles have been used to supply the proximal fibula for vascularized epiphyseal transfer. The optimal pedicle has, however, not been agreed on. This study aimed to describe the detailed vascular anatomy of the proximal fibula to assist the surgeon in choosing the optimal pedicle. Methods: Twenty-eight lower extremities were injected with latex or a mixture of latex and barium sulfate. Vessels supplying the proximal fibula were identified and dissected, and the course, diameter, anatomical relations, length, and branches were documented. In the barium group, high-resolution computed tomographic scanning was conducted before dissection. In seven specimens, branches of the deep peroneal nerve to the tibialis anterior muscle were carefully preserved, and their relation to the proximal fibular vascularity was noted. Results: An anastomotic vascular network supplied the proximal fibula. This was formed superiorly by branches of the inferior lateral genicular artery, and inferiorly by branches of the anterior tibial artery, the most important of which were the first and second recurrent epiphyseal arteries. One or more deep peroneal nerve branches passed deep to the first recurrent epiphyseal artery in all specimens examined. In five specimens, all of the branches were superficial to the second recurrent epiphyseal artery, whereas two had branches deep to it. Conclusions: The proximal fibula can be transferred using the inferior lateral genicular or anterior tibial artery because of the existing anastomosis. Factors including length of pedicle, potential for nerve injury, and diaphyseal portion to be harvested should be considered in the pedicle choice.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time to diagnosis and management of hook of hamate fractures in an era of advanced imaging. We performed a retrospective study of 51 patients treated for hook of hamate fractures. Patients were sent a quickDASH questionnaire regarding the outcomes of their treatment. Hook of hamate fractures were diagnosed with advanced imaging at a median of 27 days. Clinical findings of hook of hamate tenderness had better sensitivity than carpal tunnel-view radiographs. Nonunion occurred in 24% of patients with non-operative treatment and did not occur in the operative group. Both treatment groups achieved good clinical results, with a grip strength of 80% compared with the non-injured hand and a median quickDASH score of 2. Advanced imaging improved the time to diagnosis and treatment compared to historical case series. Nonunion is common in patients treated non-operatively. Level of evidence: IV