-
Clinics in Plastic Surgery Apr 2024Coverage of burn wounds is crucial to prevent sequalae including dehydration, wound infection, sepsis, shock, scarring, and contracture. To this end, numerous temporary... (Review)
Review
Coverage of burn wounds is crucial to prevent sequalae including dehydration, wound infection, sepsis, shock, scarring, and contracture. To this end, numerous temporary and permanent options for coverage of burn wounds have been described. Temporary options for burn coverage include synthetic dressings, allografts, and xenografts. Permanent burn coverage can be achieved through skin substitutes, cultured epithelial autograft, ReCell, amnion, and autografting. Here, we aim to summarize the available options for burn coverage, as well as important considerations that must be made when choosing the best reconstructive option for a particular patient.
Topics: Humans; Transplantation, Autologous; Autografts; Skin, Artificial; Transplantation, Homologous; Bandages; Skin Transplantation; Burns; Skin
PubMed: 38429047
DOI: 10.1016/j.cps.2023.12.001 -
Facial Plastic Surgery : FPS Dec 2023A wide variety of grafting materials and techniques can be used to create functional and aesthetic changes in rhinoplasty. Choosing the optimal grafting approach is... (Review)
Review
A wide variety of grafting materials and techniques can be used to create functional and aesthetic changes in rhinoplasty. Choosing the optimal grafting approach is critical to achieving an optimal patient outcome. We present a review of autografts, allografts, and alloplasts used in primary and revision rhinoplasty and discuss factors that impact graft choice. Autologous grafts serve as the pillar for grafting material in rhinoplasty given their reliable long-term outcomes, low rates of infection, resorption, and extrusion, and ability to provide structural scaffolding as well as contour. Cadaveric allografts can be utilized as a source of grafting material in certain clinical scenarios including revision rhinoplasty and have been shown to be equally safe and effective as autologous grafts while avoiding donor-site morbidity. Alloplasts can prove useful in rhinoplasty in cases of iatrogenic nasal deformities or revision cases. Careful consideration of clinical scenario, patient factors, and outcome goals is necessary to choose the appropriate grafting approach to address functional and cosmetic outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Rhinoplasty; Esthetics, Dental; Transplantation, Autologous; Autografts; Reoperation; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 37348541
DOI: 10.1055/a-2116-4566 -
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Apr 2024After studying this article and viewing the videos, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the current epidemiology of burn injuries. 2. Understand burn...
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After studying this article and viewing the videos, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the current epidemiology of burn injuries. 2. Understand burn pathophysiology and perform a wound assessment. 3. Summarize the initial emergency management of a burn patient. 4. Calculate the anticipated fluid resuscitation requirements for a burn injury, and diagnose the complications of overresuscitation. 5. Describe the diagnosis and management of inhalation injury. 6. List the goals of wound care for superficial and deep burns, and describe the closed dressing technique. 7. Perform excision of a burn wound. 8. Compare various wound closure techniques using autografts and skin substitutes.
SUMMARY
Plastic surgeons are essential members of the multidisciplinary burn team. Burn injuries remain common, and plastic surgeons have an opportunity to develop and innovate the field of acute burn care in light of workforce shortages. Burn pathophysiology is complex and dynamic, which informs the challenges encountered during the perioperative phase. Accurate burn wound assessment remains difficult, with implications for diagnosis and management. A systematic approach is required when stabilizing a major burn and/or inhalation injury with newly updated fluid resuscitation and triage guidelines. Wound care continues to evolve, with an emphasis on a closed dressing technique. For deeper burns, new surgical techniques are emerging for surgical débridement, along with improvements to traditional methods of tangential excision. Following excision, a number of established and novel techniques are available to close the wound with either autografts or skin substitutes.
Topics: Humans; Burns; Surgeons; Autografts; Bandages; Critical Care
PubMed: 38546365
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000011182 -
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Jun 2024Several approaches to surgical techniques and graft types exist in posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction. The literature lacks knowledge regarding outcomes after... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Several approaches to surgical techniques and graft types exist in posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction. The literature lacks knowledge regarding outcomes after autograft versus allograft reconstruction for PLC injuries.
PURPOSE
To comprehensively review the current literature on PLC reconstruction and compare outcomes between autograft and allograft tissues.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
The PubMed and Scopus online databases were searched with the terms "PLC,""posterolateral knee,""posterolateral corner," and "reconstruction" in varying combinations. Patient characteristics, graft type, graft failure, surgical techniques, functional outcome scores, and varus laxity on stress radiographs were reviewed and compared between PLC reconstruction with autografts versus allografts.
RESULTS
Included were 22 studies comprising 33 cohorts: 16 autografts (n = 280 knees) and 17 allografts (336 knees). There were 69 isolated PLC reconstructions (58 allografts and 11 autografts) and 493 multiligament reconstructions (269 autografts and 224 allografts). There was no difference in the mean patient age (30.5 vs 33.5 years, respectively; = .11) or mean follow-up (39.5 vs 37.7 months, respectively; = .68) between the autograft and allograft groups. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in graft failures between graft types (pooled mean autograft vs allograft: 0.44 vs 0.41 failures; = .95). There was a significant difference in the mean postoperative Lysholm scores for autografts versus allografts (89.6 vs 85.5, respectively; = .04). There was no difference between the cohorts in preoperative or postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores or postoperative varus laxity.
CONCLUSION
Our review and meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in graft failure rates or objective outcomes after PLC reconstruction based on graft type alone. There was a significant difference in postoperative Lysholm scores in favor of the autograft group and no significant difference in IKDC subjective scores.
PubMed: 38840793
DOI: 10.1177/23259671241247542 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Sep 2023To systematically review the current literature regarding the indications, techniques, and outcomes after 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
To systematically review the current literature regarding the indications, techniques, and outcomes after 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
METHODS
A literature search was performed using SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses statement. Inclusion criteria was limited to Level I-IV human studies reporting on indications, surgical techniques, imaging, and/or clinical outcomes of 2-stage revision ACLR.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies with 355 patients treated with 2-stage revision ACLR were identified. The most commonly reported indications were tunnel malposition and tunnel widening, with knee instability being the most common symptomatic indication. Tunnel diameter threshold for 2-stage reconstruction ranged from 10 to 14 mm. The most common grafts used for primary ACLR were bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft, hamstring graft, and LARS (polyethylene terephthalate) synthetic graft. The time elapsed from primary ACLR to the first stage surgery ranged from 1.7 years to 9.7 years, whereas the time elapsed between the first and second stage ranged from 21 weeks to 13.6 months. Six different bone grafting options were reported, with the most common being iliac crest autograft, allograft bone dowels, and allograft bone chips. During definitive reconstruction, hamstring autograft and BPTB autograft were the most commonly used grafts. Studies reporting patient-reported outcome measures showed improvement from preoperative to postoperative levels in Lysholm, Tegner, and objective International Knee and Documentation Committee scores.
CONCLUSIONS
Tunnel malpositioning and widening remain the most common indications for 2-stage revision ACLR. Bone grafting is commonly reported using iliac crest autograft and allograft bone chips and dowels, whereas hamstring autograft and BPTB autograft were the most used grafts during the second-stage definitive reconstruction. Studies showed improvements from preoperative to postoperative levels in commonly used patient reported outcomes measures.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level IV, systematic review of Level I, III, and IV studies.
Topics: Humans; Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Knee Joint; Patellar Ligament; Transplantation, Autologous; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Autografts
PubMed: 36863622
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.02.009