Evolving Trends in Unilateral Cleft Lip Repair Based on Continuous Certification by the American Board of Plastic Surgery

Gingivoperiosteoplasty in Children with Cleft Lip and Palate: The Need for Alveolar Bone Grafting

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the efficacy of gingivoperiosteoplasty (GPP) in preventing alveolar bone grafting (ABG) among children with cleft lip and palate (CLP).

DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective university hospital single center study.

PATIENTS

Children with CLP treated with GPP from 2000-2015 were included. Those under eight years of age, without definitive conclusions regarding need for ABG or with incomplete data were excluded.

INTERVENTIONS

Included patients were analyzed for demographics, cleft type, age at GPP, associated cleft surgery, use of nasoalveolar molding (NAM), indication for ABG, operating surgeon and presence of residual alveolar fistula. T-tests and Fisher's exact tests were utilized for statistical analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The need for ABG.

RESULTS

Of the 1682 children identified with CLP, 64 underwent GPP and met inclusion criteria. 78% of patients with CLP who underwent GPP were recommended for ABG. Those who received GPP at a younger age (P = .004) and at the time of initial cleft lip repair (P = .022) were less likely to be recommended for ABG. Patients with complete CLP were more likely to be recommended for ABG than patients with cleft lip and alveolus only (P = .015). The operating surgeon impacted the likelihood of ABG (P = .004). Patient gender, race, ethnicity, laterality, and NAM were not significantly associated with recommendation for ABG.

CONCLUSION

GPP does not preclude the need for ABG. Therefore, the success of ABG after GPP and maxillary growth restriction should be analyzed further to determine if GPP is a worthwhile adjunct to ABG in cleft care.

Clinical Practice Patterns in Facelift Surgery: A 15-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

This study evaluates change in practice patterns in facelift surgery based on a 15-year review of tracer data collected by the American Board of Plastic Surgery as part of the Continuous Certification process.

METHODS

Tracer data for facelift was reviewed from 2006 to 2021. The 15-year collection period was divided into an "early cohort (EC)" from 2006 to 2014 and a "recent cohort (RC)" from 2015 to 2021.

RESULTS

Of 3400 facelifts (1710 EC/1690 RC) performed, 18% were done in hospital and 76% were done in an accredited office facility. Ninety one percent of patients were female with an average age of 61 years. There was an increase in the number of secondary facelifts (4% EC vs 18% RC; p < 0.001) and an increased number of patients concerned about volume loss/deflation (25% EC vs 37% RC; p < 0.001). The surgical approach to the SMAS involved plication (40%), flaps (35%), SMASectomy (22%) and MACS lift (6%). One percent of facelifts were subperiosteal and 8% skin-only. Significantly more surgeons used the lateral SMAS flap (14% EC vs 18% RC, p < 0.005), while less used an extended SMAS flap (21% vs 18%; p = 0.001) and MACS lift (10% EC vs 6% RC; p = 0.021) techniques. The concomitant use of facial fat grafting is becoming more common (15% EC vs 24% RC, p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

A 15-year review of ABPS tracer data provides an excellent venue for the objective assessment of the current status of facelift surgery, and key changes in practice patterns during that time.

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 .

Practice Profile of Practicing Plastic Surgeons: A 20-year Review of Plastic Surgery Statistics

Background

Evaluation of practice patterns by American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) diplomates allows for a greater understanding as to how the field is progressing. Understanding evolving procedural trends can give insight into plastic surgeons' subspecialty focus and influence resident training to prepare them for future practice.

Methods

American Society of Plastic Surgeons member only projections for aesthetic and reconstructive procedures were reviewed from 1999 to 2018 in 5-year increments to identify shifts in frequency between the beginning (1999-2003) and end (2014-2018) of the timeframe. Tracer utilization for all four ABPS modules were also examined between 2014 and 2018. Descriptive statistics were performed to identify significant changes (P < 0.05) in subspecialty focus and procedure trends.

Results

Annual procedure incidence between 2014 and 2018 was compared with that between 1999 and 2003. The annual number of procedures more than doubled from 3,244,084 to 6,628,082. Among reconstructive procedures, there was a statistically significant increase in the number of breast reconstruction, breast implant removal, and maxillofacial surgery procedures, and a statistically significant decrease in the number of procedures focused on reconstruction of birth defects, burn injuries, and hand anomalies. In aesthetic surgery, significant increases were seen in the number of augmentation mammoplasty, abdominoplasty, and mastopexy procedures, with significant decreases in the number of blepharoplasty and rhinoplasty procedures.

Conclusions

Understanding the changing practice patterns of ABPS diplomates is essential to define the direction that our specialty is taking over time, and to guide program directors in plastic surgery on areas of focus for appropriate training of plastic surgeons.

Practice Patterns in Primary Breast Augmentation: A 16-Year Review of Continuous Certification Tracer Data from the American Board of Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

As part of the continuous certification process, the American Board of Plastic Surgery collects case data for specific tracer procedures in aesthetic surgery to assess practice improvement by the diplomates. These case-based data provide valuable information on national trends in clinical practice. The current study was performed to analyze practice patterns in aesthetic primary breast augmentation.

METHODS

Breast augmentation tracer data were reviewed from 2005 to 2021 and grouped into an early cohort (EC), from 2005 through 2014, and a recent cohort (RC), from 2015 through 2021. Fisher exact tests and two-sample t tests compared demographic characteristics of the patients, surgical techniques, and complication rates.

RESULTS

Patients in the RC were slightly older (34 versus 35 years; P < 0.001), more likely to have ptosis greater than 22 cm (20% versus 23%; P < 0.0001), less likely to smoke (12% versus 8%; P < 0.0001), and less likely to undergo a preoperative mammogram (29% versus 24%; P < 0.0001). From a technical standpoint, inframammary incisions have become more common (68% versus 80%; P < 0.0001), whereas periareolar incision use has decreased (24% versus 14%; P < 0.0001). Submuscular plane placement has increased (22% versus 56%; P < 0.0001), while subglandular placement has decreased (19% versus 7%; P < 0.0001). Silicone implants are most popular (58% versus 82%; P < 0.0001). Textured implant use increased from 2011 (2%) to 2016 (16%), followed by a sharp decline to 0% by 2021. Trends follow U.S. Food and Drug Administration approvals and warnings.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights evolving trends in aesthetic breast augmentation over the past 16 years. The most common technique remains a smooth silicone prosthesis placed in the subpectoral plane through an inframammary incision.

Comparison of Cleft Lip Nasal Deformities Between Lesser-Form and Incomplete Cleft Lips: Implication for Primary Rhinoplasty

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated various manifestations of nasal deformities in lesser-form cleft lips, including the minor-form, microform, and mini-microform, by photogrammetric comparison with incomplete cleft lips.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary university-affiliated hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 160 patients with unrepaired unilateral incomplete cleft lips ranging from lesser-form to two-thirds way clefts.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The severity of nasal deformities was assessed by photogrammetric measurements of linear and angular variables. The symmetry ratio between the cleft and non-cleft sides was obtained by measuring various nasal parameters and comparing them among the different labial cleft groups.

RESULTS

The degree of nasal deformities increased with the extent of labial clefts among the 3 labial cleft groups (lesser-form, halfway, and two-thirds way clefts) in terms of alar base width ratio (1.102, 1.197, 1.309; P < .05), nostril width ratio (1.287, 1.387, 1.551; P < .05), and columellar angle (11.5, 14.45, 18.197; P < .05). Each parameter indicated lesser-form, halfway, and two-thirds way clefts, respectively. However, only the lateral lip height ratio (0.942, 0.851, 0.87; P < .05) and nostril width ratio (1.207, 1.35, 1.29; P < .05) significantly differed among the 3 subgroups. Each parameter indicated mini-microform, microform, and minor-form, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The cleft nasal deformities in lesser-form cleft lip present comparable severities among its subtypes, which implies that the extent of the labial cleft is not correlated with nasal deformities. Each nose in the lesser form cleft should be individually assessed for primary rhinoplasty and requires tailored correction.

Current trends in unilateral cleft lip repair

The purpose of this review is to provide an in-depth look at the current perioperative and intraoperative practices for unilateral cleft lip repair. The contemporary literature reveals trends towards incorporation of curvilinear and geometric hybrid lip repairs. Perioperative practices are trending in new directions as well with the use of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols to reduce morbidity and length of stay, continued use of nasoalveolar molding, and a tendency to favor outpatient repair with more utilization of same day surgery centers. There is much room for growth, with new and exciting technologies on the horizon to improve upon cosmesis, functionality, and the operative experience.

Characterizing Cleft Rhinoplasty Across Skeletal Maturity: A Systematic Review of Terminology and Surgical Techniques

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to assess cleft rhinoplasty terminology across phases of growth.Design/Setting: A systematic review was performed on cleft rhinoplasty publications over 20 years.Interventions: Studies were categorized by age at surgical intervention: infant (<1 year); immature (1 to 14 years); mature (>15 years).Main Outcome Measures: Collected data included terminology used and surgical techniques.

RESULTS

The 288 studies included demonstrated a wide range of terminology. In the infant group, 51/54 studies used the term "primary." In the immature group, 7/18 studies used the term "primary," 3/18 used "secondary." In the mature group, 2/33 studies used the term "primary," 16/33 used "secondary," 2/33 used "definitive," 5/33 used terms such as "mature," "adult," and "late," and 8/33 did not use terminology.Surgical technique assessment demonstrated: cleft rhinoplasty at infancy used nostril rim or no nasal incision, immature rhinoplasty used closed and open rhinoplasty incisions; and mature rhinoplasty used a majority of open rhinoplasty. Infant and immature cleft rhinoplasty incorporated septal harvest or spur removal in <10% of cases, whereas these procedures were common in mature rhinoplasty. No studies in infants or immature patients used osteotomies or septal grafts, common techniques in mature rhinoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

Current terminology for cleft rhinoplasty is varied and inconsistently applied across stages of facial development. However, cleft rhinoplasty performed at infancy, childhood, and facial maturity are surgically distinct procedures. The authors recommend the terminology "infant," "immature," and "mature" cleft rhinoplasty to accurately describe this procedure within the context of skeletal growth.

The Rule of 10s for Cleft Repair: A Historical Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Cleft lip is a ubiquitous maxillofacial birth defect encountered globally. Repair of this anomaly has been well established in the literature. Historically, studies have recommended initiating surgical repair by the "Rule of 10s." This states that a baby should be at least 10 weeks of age or older, achieve a weight of 10 pounds, have a hemoglobin exceeding 10 g/dL, and have a white blood cell count <10,000/mm3 before undergoing surgery. However, with advances in both pediatric anesthesia and surgical technique, the concept of prioritizing earlier surgery requires a closer examination of this widespread concept.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the validity of the Rule of 10s for cleft lip repair and to determine whether plastic surgeons should continue to follow this as a strict rule or employ it as a guideline.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted by G.S., and reviewed by J.L. and M.K. All studies that addressed the "Rule of 10s" for cleft lip patients were considered. Articles were chosen from a comprehensive set of databases, including EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in March 2022. A literature search was conducted using the following keywords: rule of 10s, Millard criteria, cleft lip/palate, cleft lip/palate repair, and cleft lip/palate complications. Reference lists of selected studies were reviewed for other appropriate publications. Meta-analyses, prospective, randomized clinical trials, retrospective reviews, letters, and literature reviews were included. Single case reports, non-English publications, animal studies, and comments were excluded.

RESULTS

Among the studies included in this review, the authors found that the Rule of 10s has undergone a limited evaluation within the context of today's advances in surgical technique and anesthesia. The current articles generally conclude surgeons may proceed with earlier cleft repair on otherwise healthy infants who do not meet all criteria of the Rule of 10s.

CONCLUSIONS

When taking into consideration the current advances in surgical technique and diminished risks of anesthesia, the Rule of 10s should be applied only as a guideline instead of a rule in plastic surgery. Surgeons should address each patient individually and adhere more rigidly to the Rule of 10s when the infant does not have characteristics warranting expedited repair.