Citations

Objective: Contour irregularities in the temporal region have been reported previously after procedures involving temporal dissection. In this study, we report paradoxical temporal enlargement (PTE) following interfascial pterional craniotomy. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent a unilateral transcranial procedure with frontotemporal approach at our institution between September 2013 and December 2017 was performed. Patients with a previous craniotomy or bilateral craniotomy were excluded. Radiological imaging series including computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were utilized to calculate temporal soft tissue volumes both preoperatively and postoperatively by using advanced software technology. Relative soft tissue volume differences between the operative side and the contralateral side were calculated at different time-points including preoperative, 3-months follow-up (3M), 12-months (12M) follow-up, and the last follow-up (LFU, over 1-year). Results: Forty-three patients were included. Mean age was 52.7 ± 4.5 years. Mean follow-up was 27.9 ± 15.8 months. Significant changes of temporal fat pad relative-volume difference were observed between the preoperative and the corresponding 3M (t [82] = −2.8865, P = 0.0050); 12M (t [77] = −4.4321, P < 0.0001), and LFU (t [74] = −4.9862, P < 0.0001) postoperative time points. No significant change of the temporalis muscle was observed between the preoperative and the corresponding 3M (P = 0.3629), 12M (P = 0.1553), or LFU (P = 0.0715). Soft tissue volume showed a significant increase on the operative side between the preoperative and the corresponding LFU (t [74] = −2.5866, P = 0.0117). Conclusions: Paradoxical temporal enlargement with more than 10% volumetric change was observed in 24% of the patients at their LFU (>1-year). This change was not due to temporalis muscle changes. Paradoxical temporal enlargement was due to hypertrophy of the superficial temporal fat pad. Before surgical correction of postoperative temporal contour changes, it is important to obtain imaging and characterize the etiology of the deformity.

Case: This is a case of a 41-year-old man who sustained a traumatic proximal transfemoral amputation with loss of adductor function and inadequate soft tissue. Wound closure was achieved with split-thickness skin grafting. Subsequently, femoral lengthening was achieved with an internal magnetic lengthening nail. He underwent a free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap to resurface the limb and provide more stable soft tissue, adductor repair, and further lengthening because of his prominent abduction contracture and inadequate soft tissue. This allowed independent ambulation with a prosthetic. Conclusion: Femoral lengthening with soft-tissue reconstruction improved prosthetic function and ambulation in a patient with a short transfemoral amputation.

Background Nipple-areolar complex (NAC) tattooing remains a simple and safe procedure, which complements breast reconstruction. This study reviews 11 years of NAC tattooing to identify risk factors for tattoo-related complications. Methods Patients undergoing NAC tattooing from January 2009 to March 2020 were reviewed. Patient information, reconstructive, and tattoo procedural details were analyzed. Tattoo-related breast infections, defined as breast redness requiring antibiotic therapy within 30 days after tattoo, were captured. Patients with reactive breast redness during the first 2 postprocedural days were excluded. Results Overall, 539 patients (949 breasts) were included. Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) was performed in 73.6% of breasts (n = 698), whereas 26.4% (n = 251) underwent autologous-based reconstruction (ABR). Acellular-dermal matrix was used in 547 breasts (57.6%). There as a 13.7% (n = 130) of breasts that underwent pretattoo radiation. There was a 65.3% (n = 456) of breasts that underwent subpectoral IBR, whereas 34.7% (n = 242) breasts underwent prepectoral IBR. Tattoo-related infection rate was 2.2% (n = 21 breasts). Mean time to infection was 6.5 ± 5.3 days. There was a 85.7% (n = 18) of infections that occurred in IBR patients, one third occurring in radiated patients. There was a 95.2% (n = 20) of infections that were treated with oral antibiotics only. One explantation was performed after failed intravenous antibiotics. On multivariable analysis, radiation history (odds ratio, 4.1, P = 0.007) and prepectoral IBR (odds ratio, 2.8, P = 0.036) were independent predictors of tattoo-related infection. Among irradiated breasts, breasts with IBR had greater odds of developing tattoo-related infection versus breasts with ABR (P = 0.025). Conclusions Although tattoo-related infections were uncommon, previous radiation and prepectoral IBR were both found to be independent predictors of tattoo-related breast infection. There is a role for preprocedural prophylactic antibiotics in these patients to mitigate infectious risk.

Background Vascularized gastroepiploic lymph node flaps have become a popular option to treat patients with extremity lymphedema. Overall, 2 surgical approaches to harvest this flap have been described: laparoscopic and open. In this study, we analyzed complications, harvesting time, and patient satisfaction scores, comparing these 2 techniques. Methods Between 2012– and 2018, all patients with extremity lymphedema and candidates for the gastroepiploic flap harvest were included. Two groups were compared: open and laparoscopic approaches. Flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, return of gastrointestinal motility, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction scores were assessed. Results A total of 177 patients were included, of which 126 underwent laparoscopic harvest and 51 patients underwent open approach. Only 2 patients in the laparoscopic group had prior abdominal surgery not related to cancer treatment compared with 7 patients in the open approach (P < 0.01). Average surgical completion time for the laparoscopic versus open approach was 136 and 102 minutes, respectively (P < 0.02). Postoperative complications for the laparoscopic versus open were as follows: 1 patient developed pancreatitis and 2 developed ileus in the laparoscopic approach, whereas 3 patients developed ileus, 1 developed small bowel obstruction, 2 developed superficial site infection, and 1 developed minor wound dehiscence in the open approach. No patient required further surgical intervention. Average return of gastrointestinal function was 1 day (laparoscopic) and 2 days (open), respectively. On a pain scale, pain scores at postoperative day 1 and upon discharge were on average 3 versus 7 and 2 versus 5, respectively (P < 0.05). Lengths of hospital stay were on average 2 days in the laparoscopic group and 5 days in the open group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores based on pain and scars were significantly better in the laparoscopic group versus open group (P < 0.03). Conclusions These data support that a minimal invasive approach is ideal and efficient when resources are available. In addition, the lower complication rate and high patient satisfaction scores give promising feedback to continue offering this technique.