Azouz, Solomon M.

Summary: Medical tattooing is a critical reconstructive component in women following mastectomy. Recently, novel three-dimensional tattooing techniques mimicking depth by using light and shadow principles have allowed for aesthetically superior results. However, results are variable between providers, and professionals skilled in tattooing are often inaccessible to patients. To assess the need and obtain more background information regarding current practices, the authors recorded survey results from 753 plastic and reconstructive surgery offices. Results showed that 23 percent of facilities that offer reconstruction do not perform or refer for nipple-areola complex tattooing, leaving the patients to seek the service on their own. In this article, the authors present the nipple-by-number device, a three-dimensionally–printed stencil to ensure an accurate, consistent, and personalized aesthetic result during three-dimensional nipple-areola complex tattooing. The nipple-by-number device permits the plastic surgeon or supervised treating specialist to inexpensively, efficiently, and expeditiously perform the three-dimensional nipple-areola complex tattooing in their office. Furthermore, the device gives the patients the option of having their premorbid nipple-areola complex anatomy restored through preoperative photographs or choosing a different nipple-areola complex from a catalogue of designs. The device can be applied on any reconstructed breast mound whether or not a nipple projection procedure has been performed.

Background: There have been many technical and scientific advances over the last decade in peripheral nerve surgery. Human acellular nerve graft (HANA) has become increasingly popular but current practice patterns among hand surgeons have yet to be defined. Coding practices may not have kept up with this innovation. A 26 question survey of hand surgeons was performed to evaluate the adoption of HANA, and current coding and billing practices. The survey was sent to hand surgeons trained in orthopedic, plastic, general, and neuro surgery. The survey was designed and implemented by the Mayo Clinic Survey Center. Results: Four hundred sixty-one responses to the survey were received. Most respondents currently use HANA (70%). Of those surgeons who do use HANA, nearly all use it less than 10 times per month (98%). There was no significant difference in the use of HANA across different specialties. There was a significant difference in HANA use depending on practice type with higher use by those in group private practice (57%) compared with academic practice (28%), solo practice (12%), and other practice environment (3%). There was a significant difference in HANA use depending on the number of years in practice. Those in practice less than 5 years used HANA the most (32%), followed by > 20 years in practice (27%), 6–10 years in practice (16%), 16–20 years in practice (14%), and 11–15 years in practice (11%). When asked the Current Procedural Terminology code they would use to bill for the procedure of choice, the most common response was 64910 (nerve repair with synthetic conduit or vein allograft). Conclusions: HANA has surpassed nerve conduit as the traditional gold standard in our study with nearly 70% of hand surgeons using HANA in their practice and a greater percentage of respondents choosing HANA as their first choice to repair as compared with nerve conduit, nerve autograft, or vein graft. There remains confusion regarding appropriate billing practices for the use of HANA. Due to its common use, a Current Procedural Terminology code should specifically designated for the use of HANA in the hand.

Early soft‐tissue coverage is critical for treating traumatic open lower‐extremity wounds. As free‐flap reconstruction evolves, injuries once thought to be nonreconstructable are being salvaged. Free‐tissue transfer is imperative when there is extensive dead space or exposure of vital structures such as bone, tendon, nerves, or blood vessels. We describe 2 cases of lower‐extremity crush injuries salvaged with the quad flap. This novel flap consists of parascapular, scapular, serratus, and latissimus dorsi free flaps in combination on one pedicle. This flap provides the large amount of soft‐tissue coverage necessary to cover substantial defects from skin degloving, tibia and fibula fractures, and soft‐tissue loss. In case 1, a 51‐year‐old woman was struck by an automobile and sustained bilateral tibia and fibula fractures, a crush degloving injury of the left leg, and a right forefoot traumatic amputation. She underwent reconstruction with a contralateral quad free flap. In case 2, a 53‐year‐old man sustained a right tibia plateau fracture with large soft‐tissue defects from a motorcycle accident. He had a crush degloving injury of the entire anterolateral compartment over the distal and lower third of the right leg. The large soft‐tissue defect was reconstructed with a contralateral quad flap. In both cases, the donor site was closed primarily and without early flap failures. There was one surgical complication, an abscess in case 2; the patient was taken back to the operating room for débridement of necrotic tissue. There have been no long‐term complications in either case. Both patients achieved adequate soft‐tissue coverage, avoided amputation, and had satisfactory aesthetic and functional outcomes. With appropriate surgical technique and patient selection, the quad‐flap technique is promising for reconstructing the lower extremity.