Publications

BACKGROUND: Surgical chest masculinization procedures, especially gender-affirming top surgery (GATS), are becoming increasingly prevalent in the USA. While a variety of surgical techniques have been established as both safe and effective, there is limited research examining ideal aesthetic nipple appearance and incision scar pattern. This study employs patient images to understand the public's perception on top surgery outcomes when adjusting for BMI ranges and Fitzpatrick skin types.

METHODS: Images from RealSelf modified via Adobe Photoshop depicted various scar types and nipple-areolar complex (NAC) sizes/positions. A Qualtrics survey was distributed utilizing Amazon Mechanical Turk. Statistical analysis was performed through JMP Pro 17 for ordinal and categorical values, with a p value less than or equal to 0.05 statistically significant.

RESULTS: A moderately sized and laterally placed NAC was preferred. A transverse scar that resembles the pectoral border between the level of the inframammary fold and pectoral insertion was deemed most masculine and aesthetic. Majority of results demonstrated that this is unaffected by Fitzpatrick skin types. Increased BMI images impacted public preferences, as a nipple placed farther from the transverse incision (p = 0.04) and a transverse scar position closer to the IMF was preferred in higher BMI patients.

CONCLUSIONS: An understanding of the most popular NAC and scar choices, as well as how these factors may differ when considering a Fitzpatrick skin type or BMI categorization was attained. This validates the importance of patient-centered approach when employing surgical techniques in GATS. Future studies intend to obtain reports from actual patients considering GATS.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer-specific mortality in Hispanic women in the United States. Given the complexity of treatment options, disparities in access to quality care, and increased rates of inadequate or marginal health literacy within this population, these patients face significant barriers to informed decision-making. We aimed to assess the health literacy of Spanish breast cancer surgery websites.

METHODS: A web search using "cirugía de cancer de mama or seno" was performed to identify the top 20 websites in Spanish, divided on the basis of affiliation with academic centers or private institutions and by international/US region. Validated metrics were used to assess readability, understandability, actionability, and cultural sensitivity using Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook in Spanish, Patient Education and Materials Assessment for Understandability and Actionability, and Cultural Sensitivity and Assessment Tool, respectively.

RESULTS: Online materials in Spanish had a mean reading grade level of 10.9 (Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook in Spanish) for academic centers and 10.4 for private institutions. The average understandability score was significantly greater for academic centers at 77% compared with private institutions at 67% (P = .019). Actionability scores were low for both centers at 26% and 37%, respectively. The mean Cultural Sensitivity and Assessment Tool scores were 2.3 and 2.2, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Current Spanish resources for breast cancer surgery are unfitting not only from a readability standpoint but also in their quality and cultural sensitivity. As the Latino population in the United States increases and online resources become more accessible, we must ensure that these resources cater to their target audience, bridging the health care access gap and empowering patients in decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Medical students who attend institutions without plastic surgery residency programs are at a disadvantage in the plastic surgery match. We developed an educational program for medical students without home programs called Explore Plastic Surgery to provide an overview of the steps toward a career in plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact, utility, and success of the novel program.

METHODS: Pre- and postevent surveys were distributed to participants. Survey data were analyzed including participant demographics, perceptions of barriers unique to those without home programs, and the overall event utility.

RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen students registered for the program. Ninety-five participants completed the pre-event survey (44%), and of those, 57 participants completed the post-event survey (60%). There was an increase in understanding of the steps toward a career in plastic surgery ( P < 0.001), confidence in overcoming barriers ( P = 0.005), and level of comfort in reaching out to faculty for opportunities ( P = 0.01). There was a decrease in the perceived negative impact that attending medical schools without a home program will have on their abilities to pursue careers in plastic surgery ( P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS: After the event, participants demonstrated an increase in their confidence in overcoming barriers and a decrease in their perceptions that attending an institution without a home program would negatively impact their ability to pursue plastic surgery. Initiatives focused on early exposure and recruitment of medical students may be important to promote accessibility and diversity within plastic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Research in gender-affirming chest surgery has primarily compared cisgender versus transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people, without specifically addressing nonbinary people. This study will assess surgical complications between cisgender, transgender, and nonbinary adults undergoing breast reductions.

METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases from 2015 to 2021 were used to identify TGD patients who underwent breast reduction (Current Procedural Terminology code: 19318) and cisgender patients who underwent this procedure for cosmesis or cancer prophylaxis. Analysis of variance tests, chi-squared tests, unpaired t-tests, and regression models compared complications among cisgender, transgender, and nonbinary patients.

RESULTS: A total of 1222 patients met the inclusion criteria: 380 (31.1%) were cisgender, 769 (62.9%) were transgender, and 73 (6.0%) were nonbinary. The proportion of TGD patients grew significantly relative to cisgender patients over the study period (P < 0.001). The overall all-cause complication rate was 3.4%, with 4.2% of cisgender, 1.4% of nonbinary, and 3.1% of transgender patients experiencing surgical complications. After adjusting for confounding variables, no statistically significant difference was observed in all-cause complication rates between the cohorts. In the sample, 19 transgender patients (2.5%) underwent reoperation. Transgender patients had a lower likelihood of wound complications (odds ratio: 0.172; 95% confidence interval: 0.035-0.849; P = 0.031) compared to cisgender patients and nonbinary patients. None of the patients experienced a severe systemic complication.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings emphasize the growing demand and safety of gender-affirming breast reductions. They underscore the importance of continued research and tailored approaches to delivering care to nonbinary and transgender patients, addressing their diverse needs and improving access to gender-affirming surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic hand and wrist amputations are rare but debilitating injuries. Surgical replantation of the hand provides a unique alternative to revision surgery but requires appropriate access to necessary medical resources. This study aims to understand the national practice of replantation of traumatic hand amputation and to determine whether disparities exist in accessing surgical treatment.

METHODS: International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision codes for replantation and revision amputation surgeries were used to gather data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2016 to 2019. Summary statistics were calculated on demographic, hospital, and outcome variables, with subanalysis performed for effect on replantation and revision rates.

RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were identified. The average patient was 35 years old with a strong male predominance (90%). The racial distribution of the cohort roughly mirrored the demographic proportions of race in the US population. Fifteen (21%) patients underwent replantation. This rate was similar between sexes, races, and income brackets. Hand replantation was primarily performed at large bed size (87%), private not-for-profit (73%), and urban teaching hospitals (94%). The most common insurance status for these patients was private, followed by Medicaid, Medicare, and self-pay. Forty-seven patients underwent revision amputation (65%) with no association between demographic characteristics. The patients remained hospitalized for significantly longer periods (P = .0188) and paid significantly more (P = .0014) if replanted. The patients were most frequently discharged home (65%), followed by skilled nursing facilities (18%).

CONCLUSION: This study describes the current state of hand amputation management and finds no evidence of sociodemographic factors influencing the surgical care provided.

INTRODUCTION: Hernia repairs are the most common surgical procedures in the United States, with a significant financial burden primarily attributed to emergent presentations and postsurgery complications. This study aimed to examine race differences on postoperative outcomes.

METHODS: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify ventral hernia repair (VHR) cases from 2016 to 2021, with a subgroup of patients undergoing component separation (CS). Statistical analysis utilized multinomial regression to compare outcomes across racial groups, generating weighted cohorts with balanced covariates to assess differences between groups.

RESULTS: 288,515 patients were initially identified. Of these, 120,017 underwent VHR and 8732 VHR with CS. After weighting for the different groups, there were no differences in demographics or comorbidities between the racial groups for both cohorts. When evaluating postoperative complications after VHR, others (American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander) had the highest rate of organ or space surgical site infection (SSI) (P < 0.001). Hospitalization >30 d was the lowest in Whites (0%), compared to Blacks (1%, P = 0.003) and others (1%, P < 0.001). For patients in the VHR with CS group, significant differences were noted in organ or space SSI (others 8%, P = 0.005), return to the operating room (others 13%, P = 0.015), hospitalizations >30 d (others 4% P = 0.002), and total LOS (others 5 [IQR 3,8], P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: Despite advancements in surgical techniques, racial differences in VHR outcomes persist. These include higher rates of complications such as SSIs, higher rates of return to the operating room, and extended hospital stays among racial groups.

BACKGROUND: The literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) discussing dorsal preservation rhinoplasty (DPR) and component dorsal hump reduction (CDHR) is scarce. This study aims to fill the gap in PROs between these techniques.

METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to investigate PROs of DPR and CDHR. A proportion meta-analysis was conducted using Stata statistical software.

RESULTS: A total of 25 studies met our inclusion criteria, pooling 1706 participants, with 13 studies on CDHP and 12 studies on DPR. Overall satisfaction rates were high, varying from 84% to 100% across studies. A subgroup analysis revealed that both techniques exhibited equally high satisfaction with no statistical differences (P = 0.18). A random-effects model revealed that about two of 100 treated patients underwent revisions across our cohort (95% interquartile range: 0-4). Notably, the CDHR technique was associated with a significant 53.7-point reduction in the Standardized Cosmesis and Health Nasal Outcomes Survey (SCHNOS)-cosmetic domain [95% confidence interval (CI): -62.7 to -44.8, P < 0.001], along with a meaningful improvement in SCHNOS-obstructive scores by -27.3 points (95% CI: -50.5 to -4.04, P = 0.02). Conversely, the DPR was linked to a 55.3-point reduction in the SCHNOS-cosmetic domain (95% CI: -60.7 to -49.9, P < 0.001), and a -19.5 point change in the SCHNOS-obstructive domain (95% CI: -27.9 to -11.1, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Although PROs are comparable, the literature suggests that CDHR outcomes may be better than DPR in alleviating obstructive symptoms, potentially offering an evidence-based choice for addressing functional concerns in rhinoplasty.

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to understand the perceptions of potential complications and motivations among patients willing to travel internationally for cosmetic surgery and to gain insight into public perceptions of cosmetic surgery tourism by surveying a large, cross-sectional sample of the general public. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was performed through Amazon Mechanical Turk regarding cosmetic surgery tourism in adults 18 years and older and currently residing in the United States (US). Results: A total of 484 responses were analyzed. Of those, 45.2% of participants would consider having plastic surgery. Among these participants, 67.1% would consider traveling outside of the US to receive cosmetic surgery. Participants who reported Hispanic or Latino ethnicity had increased odds of considering surgery abroad (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.1-8.7, P = .030). Participants reported that the top advantages of traveling outside of the US for surgery were the price of surgery internationally, a shorter waiting list for surgery, and privacy during recovery. The top disadvantages were the risk of complications, lack of follow-up or continuity care after surgery, and distance from home. Although the risk of complications was acknowledged as the top disadvantage, the perceived safety of receiving plastic surgery abroad was not related to willingness to consider having surgery abroad (P = .268). Conclusion: These findings support the need for continued awareness of patients considering international travel for cosmetic surgery and increased education of the general public regarding the safety of cosmetic surgery tourism and the importance of selecting board-certified plastic surgeons and accredited facilities.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of cosmetic tourism may increase unnecessary risks for patients as postoperative care is variable. However, little is known about the current trends and public perception of this growing phenomenon. This study compares interest in cosmetic tourism in popular medical tourism destinations relative to the US.

METHODS: Google Trends was queried from October 2017 to September 2023, examining trends over the full period and dissecting changes between 2017-2020 and 2020-2023. Search volume data were retrieved for the top international countries and the US for each of the top five cosmetic procedures, according to the ISAPS 2022 Global Survey. A p value < 0.05 was used for statistical significance.

RESULTS: Searches for liposuction, blepharoplasty, breast augmentation, mastopexy, and abdominoplasty were compared between the US, Mexico, Turkey, Thailand, and Colombia. Google Trends data mirrored the prevalence of the two most common procedures, liposuction, and breast augmentation. Differences in interest regarding liposuction were greatest in Mexico, Thailand, and Turkey compared to the US (p < 0.05). Medical tourism for blepharoplasty had the highest search interest scores for Turkey and Thailand from 2017 to 2023 (p < 0.05). Significant differences were also consistent across all time intervals for breast augmentation, mastopexy, and abdominoplasty, with higher interest in Mexico and Turkey (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS: Google Trends analysis serves as an insightful tool for understanding cosmetic tourism. Changing trends bring the potential to assess worldwide versus country-specific procedure interest. These observed trends may foreshadow future international aesthetic procedure trends.

NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.