Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis warrants individualized, risk-stratified approach, and constitutes a relatively controversial topic in plastic surgery. Objectives To determine the safety of a seven-day postoperative enoxaparin regimen for VTE prophylaxis compared to a single preoperative dose of heparin in abdominal body contouring surgery. Methods This single-institution pre-post study compared the safety of a seven-day enoxaparin postoperative regimen to a single preoperative dose of heparin in abdominal body contouring procedures performed by a single surgeon from 2007 to 2018. Four procedures were included: traditional panniculectomy, abdominoplasty, fleur-de-lis panniculectomy, and body contouring liposuction. Group I patients received a single dose of 5000 units subcutaneous heparin in the preoperative period, and no postoperative chemical prophylaxis was administered. Group II patients received 40 mg subcutaneous enoxaparin in the immediate preoperative period, then once-daily for seven days postoperatively. Results A total of 195 patients were included in the study, 66 in Group I and 129 in Group II. The groups demonstrated statistically similar VTE risk profiles, based on the 2005 Caprini risk assessment model. There were no statistically significant differences in the two primary outcomes: postoperative bleeding and VTE events. Group I patients had higher reoperation rates (22.7 percent versus 10.1 percent, p = 0.029), which was secondary to higher rates of revision procedures. Conclusions A seven-day postoperative course of once-daily enoxaparin for VTE risk reduction in abdominal body contouring surgery does not significantly increase the risk of bleeding. Implementation of this regimen for post-discharge chemoprophylaxis, when indicated following individualized risk stratification, is appropriate.

Background Many surgeons are reluctant to discontinue prophylactic antibiotics after 24 hours in tissue expander breast reconstruction (TEBR) because of fear of increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Currently, there is no consensus regarding antibiotic prophylaxis duration in TEBR. In addition, there remains a lack of research investigating microorganisms involved in SSI across various perioperative antibiotic protocols. The purpose of this study was to examine how 2 different prophylactic antibiotic regimens impacted the bacterial profiles of SSI and rate of implant loss after TEBR. Methods A single-institution retrospective review of immediate TEBRs between 2001 and 2018 was performed. Surgical site infections requiring hospitalization before stage 2 were included. Highly virulent organisms were defined as ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter species). Implant loss was defined as removal of tissue expander without immediate replacement. Results Of 660 TEBRs, 85 (12.9%) developed an SSI requiring hospitalization before stage 2. Fifty-six (65.9%) received less than 24 hours of perioperative intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics after discharge (group 1), and 29 (34.1%) received less than 24 hours of intravenous antibiotics only (group 2). There was no significant difference in demographics, preoperative chemotherapy/radiation, acellular dermal matrix usage, or treatment of SSI between groups. In group 1, 64% (n = 36) developed culture positive SSIs, compared with 83% (n = 24) in group 2 (P = 0.076). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacteria in both groups. Group 2 demonstrated a significantly increased incidence of gram-positive organisms (46.4% vs 72.4%, P = 0.022) and S. aureus (21.4% vs 55.2%, P = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference in overall highly virulent (P = 0.168), gram-negative (P = 0.416), or total isolated organisms (P = 0.192). Implant loss between groups 1 and 2 (62.5% vs 62.1%, P = 0.969) respectively, was nearly identical. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that, despite differences in bacterial profiles between 2 antibiotic protocols, prolonged postoperative antibiotic use did not protect against overall highly virulent infections or implant loss. Antibiotic stewardship guidelines against the overuse of prolonged prophylactic regimens should be considered. Further analysis regarding timing of SSIs and antibiotic treatment is warranted.

Background A multitude of reconstructive options exist for patients after Mohs surgery of cutaneous neoplasms of the head and neck. Secondary intention healing is often overlooked and underused but has numerous advantages, including superior esthetic outcomes compared with surgical reconstruction for wounds that exhibit particular characteristics. The ability to predict cosmetic results based on wound characteristics can greatly help in the decision between surgical repair and secondary intention healing. Although other studies have discussed results after secondary intention healing on various areas of the head and neck, here, we specifically focus on cases of the nasal area. Methods We conducted a chart review of 37 patients with nasal reconstructions using secondary intention healing by a single surgeon over a 2-year period. Wound outcomes were graded as poor, acceptable, good, or excellent based on definitions found in the literature. Results We found that overall, the best cosmetic outcomes were associated with concave areas of the nose, such as the nasal ala and sidewall, and that superficial wounds healed better than deep wounds. Furthermore, we found that convex areas of the nose, such as the nasal tip, did not heal as well by secondary intention. However, if the wound was small and superficial enough, the wound still healed with a good to excellent cosmetic outcome. Conclusions Healing by secondary intention is a reasonable consideration for suitable wounds. The need for surgical scar revision is addressed, if necessary, after the wound has healed. The benefits of secondary intention healing include: Future studies will address a larger cohort size of patients with more varied skin types and ages, as these are characteristics that can influence cosmetic outcome. Furthermore, healed wounds continue to improve in appearance over time, and it would be worthwhile to monitor patients' cosmetic outcomes over a longer follow-up period.

IntroductionWomen represent greater than 50% of medical students in America and are becoming increasingly well represented in surgical fields. However, parity at the trainee level has yet to be accomplished, and surgical leadership positions have remained disproportionately biased toward men. To date, there have been no comparisons on the progress within plastic surgery and other surgical specialties. This investigates the gender disparity in resident and leadership representation over the past 10 years within surgical specialties and how these disparities compare to plastic surgery.MethodsCounts of female and male residents and surgical society leaders were collected from 2008 to 2018. Surgical fields included plastic, vascular, urologic, neurologic, orthopedic, cardiothoracic, and general surgery. Leadership positions were defined as board seats on executive committees of major surgical societies or board associations. Data were acquired from publicly available sources or provided directly from the organizations. Resident data were obtained from the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education residents' reports. Individuals holding more than 1 leadership position within a year were counted only once.ResultsIn our aggregated analysis, the proportion of women in surgical leadership lags behind women in surgical residency training across all specialties (13.2% vs 27.3%, P < 0.01). General surgery had the highest proportion of female residents and leaders (35% and 18.8%, P < 0.01), followed by plastic (32.2% and 17.3%, P < 0.01), vascular (28.2% and 11.3%, P < 0.01), urologic (24.3% and 5.1%), and cardiothoracic surgery (20.5% and 7.8%, P < 0.01). Women in surgical leadership, however, increased at a faster rate than women in surgical training (11% vs 7%, P < 0.05). Plastic surgery showed the greatest rate of increase in both residents and leaders (17% and 19%, P < 0.05) followed by cardiothoracic surgery (16% and 9%, P < 0.05) and general surgery (8% and 14%, P < 0.05). For neurologic and orthopedic surgery, neither the difference in proportions between residents and leaders nor the yearly growth of these groups were significant.ConclusionsBetween 2008 and 2018, women in plastic surgery training and leadership positions have shown the most significant growth compared with other surgical subspecialties, demonstrating a strong concerted effort toward gender equality among surgical professions.