Putting It All Together: Recommendations for Improving Pain Management in Plastic Surgical Procedures–Surgical Facial Rejuvenation

Anesthesia for office-based facial plastic surgery procedures

Objective

The objective of this study is to provide a state-of-the-art review on the use of anesthetics for in-office facial plastic procedures.

Methods

A search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Review using the keywords "anesthesia," "office-based procedures," "local anesthesia," "facial plastics," "oral sedation," "moderate sedation," and "deep sedation."

Results and Conclusions

Over the past few decades, the shift toward in-office invasive procedures has increased patient convenience and decreased hospital resource utilization. Many tools exist to reduce patient anxiety and discomfort in an office-based setting. With proper patient selection and technique, facial plastic surgeons can adequately anesthetize patients to perform Mohs reconstruction, cutaneous excisions, blepharoplasty, face-lifts, and other in-office procedures.

Insulin syringe for anesthesia in ptosis surgery: a randomized, fellow eye-controlled clinical study

PURPOSE

Unlike ordinary 30-gauge needles, insulin syringe needles are thinner and shorter and have a comparatively blunt tip. Therefore, insulin syringes may reduce injection discomfort, bleeding, and edema by minimizing tissue damage and vascular penetration. This study aimed to evaluate the potential benefits of using insulin syringes for local anesthesia in ptosis surgery.

METHODS

This randomized, fellow eye-controlled study included 60 patients (120 eyelids), conducted at a university-based hospital. An insulin syringe was used on one eyelid, and a conventional 30-gauge needle was used on the other. Patients were instructed to score pain in both eyelids using a visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (unbearable pain). Ten minutes after the injection, two observers scored degrees of hemorrhage and edema in both eyelids on five- and four-pointing grading scales (0-4 and 0-3) for each value, and the average score between the two observers was calculated and compared.

RESULTS

The VAS score was 5.17 in the insulin syringe group and 5.35 in the 30-gauge needle group (p = 0.282). Ten minutes after the anesthesia, the median hemorrhage scores were 1.00 and 1.75 (p = 0.010), and the median eyelid edema scores were 1.25 and 2.00 (p = 0.007) in the insulin syringe and 30-gauge needle groups, respectively (Fig. 1).

CONCLUSION

Injecting local anesthesia using an insulin syringe significantly reduces hemorrhage and eyelid edema, but not injection pain, before skin incision. Insulin syringes are useful in patients at high risk of bleeding because they can reduce the penetrative tissue damage caused by needle insertion.

Nonopioid Adjuncts and Alternatives

Multimodality nonopioid analgesia can be effective for pain control. Balancing risks and benefits of treatment should guide the appropriateness of opioid versus nonopioid pain control.

Systematic Review of Liposomal Bupivacaine (Exparel) for Postoperative Analgesia

BACKGROUND

Management of postoperative pain often requires multimodal approaches. Suboptimal dosages of current therapies can leave patients experiencing periods of insufficient analgesia, often requiring rescue therapy. With absence of a validated and standardized approach to pain management, further refinement of treatment protocols and targeted therapeutics is needed. Liposomal bupivacaine (Exparel) is a longer acting form of traditional bupivacaine that delivers the drug by means of a multivesicular liposomal system. The effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine has not been systematically analyzed relative to conventional treatments in plastic surgery.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of the MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases was conducted for studies published through October of 2015 with search terms related to liposomal bupivacaine and filtered for relevance to postoperative pain control in plastic surgery. Data on techniques, outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction were collected.

RESULTS

A total of eight articles were selected and reviewed from 160 identified. Articles covered a variety of techniques using liposomal bupivacaine for postoperative pain management. Four hundred five patients underwent procedures (including breast reconstruction, augmentation mammaplasty, abdominal wall reconstruction, mastectomy, and abdominoplasty) where pain was managed with liposomal bupivacaine and compared with those receiving traditional pain management. Liposomal bupivacaine use showed adequate safety and tolerability and, compared to traditional protocols, was equivalent or more effective in postoperative pain management.

CONCLUSION

Liposomal bupivacaine is a safe method for postoperative pain control in the setting of plastic surgery and may represent an alternative to more invasive pain management systems such as patient-controlled analgesia, epidurals, peripheral nerve catheters, or intravenous narcotics.

Modified Rhytidectomy that Produces a More Natural Look: Experience with 110 Cases

BACKGROUND

Recognition of the effects of aging on the ear and the mechanisms leading to ear deformity associated with facelift procedures aid in achieving improved aesthetic results. In 2009, the author developed a novel rhytidectomy technique to provide more natural-looking results than those achieved through other facelift procedures, which often result in facial and ear distortion/deformity. This technique is designed to optimize aesthetic outcomes by employing incisions hidden within the ear, autologous fat transfer to restore normally lost facial volume, and absorbable bidirectional sutures, all of which allow less skin removal and shorter, more concealable scars within the inside perimeter of the ear, and thus less-distorted facial contours. In this retrospective study, the author added one important modification to this previously described approach for preventing ear deformity.

OBJECTIVES

The author will show that this modified rhytidectomy technique has many benefits over a traditional rhytidectomy, and it results in a natural-looking facelift.

METHODS

The author modified the original technique to secure the ears in a way that prevents inferior drifting. The modified technique involves the placement of two parallel strands of 3-0 Monocryl sutures under the scalp and over the skull and running from one side of the head to the other side using a 6-inch blunt needle. The absorbable strands are passed from the inferior part of each earlobe-one in front of the ear and the other in back of the ear. The strands are tied with knots under moderate tension under each earlobe, securing the ear back in the anatomical preoperative position. This secures the bottom of the ears and prevents caudal drifting.

DISCUSSION

The use of 360° round-block, inside-the-ear incisions is advantageous. These incisions have much less lymphatic derangement of the skin, because the overall cut is shorter and the skin is not cut as extensively as in other methods that use longer incisions to get rid of more excess skin in facelifts.

RESULTS

This modified rhytidectomy technique has many benefits over a traditional rhytidectomy: the incisions are hidden inside the ears, so there are almost no visible external incisions, and there is no deformity of the ears and earlobes, because the ears do not drift downward. The ear canal is not distorted, there is no hairline distortion, and most importantly, it results in a natural-looking facelift without the commonly seen deformity of any noticeable pulling.

CONCLUSIONS

This modified approach to rhytidectomy achieves natural looking, aesthetically pleasing results.

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 .

Reporting of Postoperative Pain Management Protocols in Randomized Clinical Trials of Mandibular Fracture Repair: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

The control of pain associated with mandibular fractures is an important treatment outcome that affects function, adherence to treatment regimens, and patient comfort and satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the pain management protocols reported in studies of mandibular fractures, including the reporting of quality-of-life measures.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for randomized clinical trials published from 1970 to July 2014. We followed PRISMA reporting standards to assess study eligibility and extract data. Studies of patients older than 16 years who underwent operative mandibular fracture management were included. The primary data collected included the type of analgesic prescribed, associated adverse effects of the analgesic, method of pain assessment, and use of quality-of-life measures. A pain attentiveness score was assigned to studies based on the comprehensiveness of the information reported. Several variables were reviewed to determine the factors that predict reporting of pain-related data. Assessments of risk for bias were performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's domain-based evaluation method.

FINDINGS

The initial search identified 111 articles, of which 38 met inclusion criteria. Among the 38 reviewed articles, there were 38 trials and 1808 unique patients represented. Among the 38 articles, the procedures reported included maxillomandibular fixation only in 6 (16%), open reduction with internal fixation only in 20 (53%), and both in 12 (32%). Specific analgesics prescribed were reported in only 5 of the 38 studies (13%), and 3 of these used a combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and acetaminophen (paracetamol). Thirteen studies (34%) reported pain assessments and 5 (13%) included quality-of-life measures. Geographic region was the only variable that predicted pain attentiveness, with studies from Europe (3 of 11 studies [27%]) and Asia (6 of 16 studies [38%]) most likely to have a high pain attentiveness score. A low rating was least common in the United States (2 of 5 studies [40%]) (P = .047, Fisher exact test). Most of the studies had unclear (n = 27) or high (n = 6) risks for bias in the key domains assessed.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Pain management is a neglected outcome in randomized clinical trials of mandibular trauma; most studies did not describe the specific analgesics used. Many randomized clinical trials (13 [34%]) assessed pain levels among patients without providing information about the agents prescribed. The incorporation of validated pain measures and quality-of-life scores in future studies of mandibular trauma would focus attention on this key outcome measure.