Objectives To compare the transection rate at the start and at the end of the FUE procedure. Materials and methods The study was conducted in a private setup in patients undergoing first session of FUE surgery over 2000 grafts. Six areas of 1 cm2 were marked, two in midline and two on either side. All the procedures were undertaken by the single surgeon to avoid any bias. At the start of the surgery, the extraction of hair was performed in areas A1, A2, and A3. All the excised hair and transected hair were counted. The surgery was then completed but the remaining three areas (B1, B2, and B3) were left intact. Later, FUE was done in these areas. The excised hair and transected hair were counted. All the data were analyzed statistically by paired t test. Results A total of 25 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 35.2 years. The transection rate was 5.3/cm2 in mid‐zone, 4.4/cm2 on right side, and 5.7/cm2 on left side at the start and 27.7/cm2 in mid‐zone, 25.6/cm2 on right side, and 24.2/cm2 on left side at the end. The transection rate increased from 5.03 to 6.0/cm2 for FUS <2500 but increased from 4.83 to 6.6/cm2 with FUs over 2500 and increased from 5.5 to 6.67/cm2 when FUs were over 3000. Conclusion The surgeon's workload increases the hair transection during FUE.

Background Although the follicular unit excision/extraction (FUE) is regarded an easy procedure to perform, however, there are various factors which affect the outcome. The hair transection is dependent of various factors and the donor site characteristics affect largely. Objectives To know the difference in transection rate on various areas of scalp during FUE. Materials and methods The study was conducted in 10 patients undergoing FUE after obtaining informed consent. In each patient, 1 row was marked with intervening 1 cm2. The row contained five boxes of 1 cm2. Harvesting of FUs was performed using 0.9 mm serrated punch. The procedures were performed with the patient in supine position with the surgeon sitting on head side. The harvested FUs were checked under microscope. Any transection was calculated. All the data was collected and analyzed statistically. Results The total number of FUs and hair were more in center zone as compared to the sides. Whereas, the transection rate was lowest in the mid‐occipital zone as compared to the sides. Similarly, the FUs: hair ratio was more in the sides 1:1.85 as compared to 1:1.62 in central zone. The right and left sides also showed some variations. The transection was more on right side (17.7%) of the patient as compared to the left side (16.3%) Conclusion The hair transection was more on sides than in the mid‐occipital area.

BACKGROUND Face mask is considered to be an integral part of a surgeon’s dress in operating room. The following study was carried out among the plastic surgeons to know their views about the wearing the face masks in operating room (OR). METHODS A questionnaire was developed and was sent to the 2 groups of plastic surgeons which included 8 questions. Group A consisted of 100 plastic surgeons from the subcontinent. Group B consisted of 100 plastic surgeons of USA and European origins. The questionnaires were sent by emails and the data was analyzed. The questionnaire was consisted of 8 questions. RESULTS About 93% of the plastic surgeons in group A wore the mask and 86% in group B. About 96% of plastic surgeon in group A and 99% in group B used disposable masks and only 4% in group A and 1% in group B used re-usable/washable face masks. About 59% in group A and 63% in group B covered the nose. Botox and filler injections were the commonest procedures in which the surgeons opted to perform without face mask (74% in group A and 68% in group B), followed by liposuction (41% in group A and 34% in group B). The majority in both groups believed that face mask decreases the surgical site infection. CONCLUSION Most of the plastic surgeons wore the face masks in the OR. Care must be taken to ensure that properly designed studies that determine if surgical masks prevent post-operative wound infection.

No abstract

No abstract