Publications by Type: Journal Article

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: 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.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how the recent sharp rise in telemedicine has impacted trends in accessibility of breast reconstruction (BR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study reviewed patients who underwent a total mastectomy at our institution from 1 August 2016 to 31 January 2022. By comparing cohorts before and during the widespread implementation of telemedicine, we assessed telehealth's impact on healthcare accessibility, measured by distance from patients' residences to our institution.

RESULTS: A total of 359 patients were included in this study. Of those, 176 received total mastectomy prior to the availability of telemedicine, and 183 in the subsequent period. There were similar baseline characteristics among patients undergoing mastectomy, including distance from place of residence to hospital (p = 0.67). The same proportion elected to receive BR between groups (p = 0.22). Those declining BR traveled similar distances as those electing the procedure, both before the era of widespread telemedicine adoption (40.3 and 35.6 miles, p = 0.56) and during the height of telemedicine use (22.3 and 61.3 miles, p = 0.26). When tracking follow-up care, significantly more patients during the pandemic pursued at least one follow-up visit with their original surgical team, indicative of the increased utilization of telehealth services.

CONCLUSIONS: While the rate of BR remained unchanged during the pandemic, our findings reveal significant shifts in healthcare utilization, highly attributed to the surge in telehealth adoption. This suggests a transformative impact on breast cancer care, emphasizing the need for continued exploration of telemedicine's role in enhancing accessibility and patient follow-up in the post-pandemic era.

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.

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.

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.

BACKGROUND: Before and after (B&A) photographs are a sensitive part of patients' medical records, and the use of smartphones may pose risks to confidentiality and comfort. The purpose of this study was to assess patient comfort depending on the circumstances under which these photographs being taken.

METHODS: Amazon's Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing service and REDCap's survey manager were used to recruit survey participants. An anonymous survey was distributed to ascertain demographics and comfort in various B&A scenarios using a five-point Likert scale. T tests and ANOVA testing were used to compare groups.

RESULTS: There were 411 respondents with an average age of 36.1 years old. Of them, 46% were female and the majority were White (90%) and non-Hispanic (64%). Nearly one-third had previously undergone plastic surgery, with 80% receiving B&A photography. Surgeons took these photographs 51% of the time with similar rates of smartphone cameras use (47%) versus professional cameras (52%). The public had similar levels of comfort when a nurse or a surgeon took the clinical photographs (p = 0.08). Patients were significantly less comfortable when non-medically trained office staff captured their photographs (p = 0.0041). The public had similar comfort levels with the use of smartphones and professional cameras when dressed but were significantly less comfortable with the use of a smartphone when unclothed (p = < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: To ensure the best patient experience, B&A photography should be taken by a medical professional. If photographs are to be taken when the patient is unclothed, the use of a professional-grade camera may help ease patient discomfort.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 .

BACKGROUND: The creation of postoperative rhinoplasty results that appear natural and proportional to the face are crucial for patient satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to assess the public's ability to detect a post-rhinoplasty result and preference of preoperative and postoperative rhinoplasty outcomes.

METHODS: A survey was distributed using the Amazon Mechanical Turk online platform showing nine preoperative and postoperative rhinoplasty patients. Participants rated aesthetic appearance, identified areas of abnormality, and stated whether they believed the patient had undergone prior rhinoplasty.

RESULTS: A total of 456 responses were included. On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most aesthetically pleasing, the highest rated nose was a postoperative patient without visible deformities (3.95, SD 1.07) followed by the postoperative patient with a resultant bulbous tip (3.48, SD 0.96). The lowest ranking noses were the prior rhinoplasty with resultant saddle nose deformity (3.02, SD 1.19) and the prior rhinoplasty with nasal trapezoid deformity (2.95, SD 1.04). The public was able to correctly determine if patients had prior rhinoplasty surgery only if there were resultant defects. When respondents believed that the patient had undergone prior rhinoplasty, their average rating was lower than those who believed they had not undergone surgery (3.74/5 vs. 4.15/5, p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS: The belief that someone had previously undergone rhinoplasty led the public to rate the aesthetic appearance of the nose lower. To provide optimal results following rhinoplasty, surgeons may therefore seek to provide a natural, "un-operated" look.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. 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 . Differences for nasal aesthetic preferences exist and vary based on geographic region The public is unable to discern if a patient previously underwent rhinoplasty if the result does not show a postoperative defect, such as a dorsal hump, over-rotated tip, or mid-vault collapse Oppositely, the public can generally tell if patients have undergone rhinoplasty surgery if a postoperative deformity is present The belief that someone had rhinoplasty surgery negatively impacts the attractiveness ranking of the nose, even without any postoperative defects present.