Aime, Victoria

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.

Summary: Vascularized omentum lymphatic transplant is frequently used for the treatment of lymphedema due to demonstrated efficacy, a reduced complication profile, and, in particular, negligible risk of donor site lymphedema. Historically harvested by open laparotomy, more recent techniques involve laparoscopic omental harvest. Although effective and reproducible, laparoscopy may be limited by reduced visualization, minimal tactile feedback, multiple port sites, and imprecise instrumentation. Therefore, we employed the da Vinci Single-Port (SP) surgical robot system for vascularized omentum lymphatic transplant. A 52-year-old man with a 3-year history of progressive left lower extremity swelling and lymphoscintigraphy and magnetic resonance lymphangiogram consistent with lymphedema of unknown etiology underwent vascularized omentum lymphatic transplant to the left groin. A 2.5-cm infraumbilical incision was used for placement of the primary trocar, through which the camera and operating instruments were passed. Following robotic harvest, the omental lymph node flap was transferred to the left groin for microsurgical anastomosis. The procedure was uneventful, and the patient was discharged on postoperative day 1. At 6 weeks, there were no complications. Here, we show for the first time the safety and feasibility of robotic omental lymph node flap harvest for extremity lymphedema using the da Vinci Single-Port robotic system. The benefits of this technology include a minimally-invasive approach that allows for flap dissection and removal through a single 2.5-cm incision. Further investigation is necessary to characterize the indications and limitations of this technique in plastic surgery.

Abstract Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare, inflammatory dermatologic condition characterized by painful cutaneous ulcerations. Herein, we describe the third documented case of PG arising in an elective plastic surgery patient who had undergone an otherwise uncomplicated facelift. We describe the course of her diagnosis and management of PG, which involved her face and neck and then progressed to her lower extremities. Although the etiology remains unknown, PG often arises in a host with another autoimmune disease. In the case described, the patient was diagnosed with an immunoglobulin A gammopathy shortly after she developed PG. Following the case report, the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment strategy of PG is briefly reviewed. Level of Evidence: 5

Abstract Background Deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism, collectively known as venous thromboembolism (VTE), are among the most feared yet preventable surgical complications. Although many recommendations exist to reduce the risk of VTE, the actual VTE prophylaxis practices of aesthetic plastic surgeons remain unknown. Objectives The primary aim of this study was to elucidate plastic surgeons’ experiences with VTE, preferred VTE prophylaxis practices, and areas in which VTE prevention may be improved. Methods Members of The Aesthetic Society were queried via a 55-question electronic survey regarding their experience with VTE as well as their VTE prophylaxis practices. Anonymous responses were collected and analyzed by the Mayo Clinic Survey Research Center. Results The survey was sent to 1729 of The Aesthetic Society members, of whom 286 responded. Fifty percent, 38%, and 6% of respondents reported having had a patient develop a deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or death secondary to VTE, respectively. Procedures performed on the back or trunk were associated with the highest rate of VTE. Lower extremity procedures were associated with a significantly higher rate of VTE than expected. Over 90% of respondents reported utilizing a patient risk stratification assessment tool. Although at least one-half of respondents reported that the surgical facility in which they operate maintains some form of VTE prophylaxis protocol, 39% self-reported nonadherence with these protocols. Conclusions Considerable variability exists in VTE prophylaxis practices among The Aesthetic Society responders. Future efforts should simplify guidelines and tailor prophylaxis recommendations to the aesthetic surgery population. Furthermore, education of plastic surgeons performing aesthetic surgery and more diligent surgical venue supervision is needed to narrow the gap between current recommendations and actual practices.

Background: Texturing of breast implants is done to decrease the risk of associated complications. Each manufacturer utilizes unique and at times proprietary techniques to texture the surface of their implants. Little is known about the integrity of this surface structure texturing or the propensity for the surfaces to shed particulate matter. This study aimed to determine the extent of surface particulate shedding from 3 textured implants approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which are manufactured by Allergan, Mentor, and Sientra. Methods: Control images of each of the 3 textured breast implants were obtained with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A liquid adhesive, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer was then applied to the external shell of the implants, allowed to cool, and peeled from the surface. Images of the EVA copolymer were taken with SEM to qualitatively analyze displacement of surface particulate debris. Scanning electron microscopy imaging of the implants was repeated for qualitative comparisons with the control images. Results: The peeled copolymer of the 3 implants exhibited surface shedding. Comparison of the 3 breast implants showed the shedding to be greatest for the Allergan implant. Conclusions: This study highlights the dynamic surface material properties of the 3 FDA-approved breast implants. Shedding of particulate matter from the implant surfaces can be precipitated by moderate adhesion. Our qualitative examination of SEM findings showed more debris shed from the Allergan breast implants than from the Mentor or Sientra implants.