Objectives Identify which delivery modality for skin reconstruction care, face‐to‐face (FTF) in‐person versus two telemedicine modalities, store‐and‐forward (S&F) and live video chat (LVC), is patient preferred and how cost, access, wait time, and demographics influence this preference. Study Design Cross‐sectional survey. Methods A 16‐question survey querying demographics and five scenario‐specific preferences questions for the delivery of skin cancer reconstruction care was created and distributed via Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), a crowdsourcing online marketplace, and in‐person to Mohs micrographic surgery patients. Results 1394 MTurk and 55 in‐person responses were included. While 82.1% of online respondents prefer FTF clinic visits, this decreases to 58.3% with an in‐person visit cost (p < 0.01) and furthermore to a minority 43.5% with both an in‐person visit cost and wait time (p < 0.01) despite 77.8% believing that usefulness to the surgeon would improve FTF. Both the MTurk and in‐person cohorts demonstrated similar response patterns despite considerable demographic differences. Multivariable analyses revealed that telemedicine was preferred by MTurk respondents with Medicaid (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 1.97 [1.18–3.31]) or Medicare (1.69 [1.10–2.59]) versus private insurance, and prior skin cancer (2.01 [1.18–3.42]) and less preferred by those earning $140,000+ per year (0.49 [0.29–0.82]) compared to those earning <$20,000 per year. Conclusions FTF visits are preferred for skin cancer reconstruction care; this shifts toward virtual care with a cost and wait time in spite of the perceived quality of care. Individuals with socioeconomic barriers to access prefer telemedicine. MTurk can be a valuable tool for behavioral research in FPRS. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 133:294–301, 2023

BACKGROUNDFull-thickness skin grafts (FTSGs) are useful repairs for reconstructing nasal alar defects. Traditional donor sites include the preauricular, postauricular, and supraclavicular skin.OBJECTIVETo evaluate esthetic outcomes and complications of nasal alar defects repaired with FTSGs from the medial cheek.MATERIALS AND METHODSA retrospective chart review of Mohs surgery patients who had FTSG repair of the nasal ala between January 2015 and August 2020 was performed. Demographic, surgery, and follow-up visit data were reviewed. Cosmesis was rated by a facial plastic surgeon, a Mohs surgeon, and a plastic surgeon using baseline, defect, and follow-up visit photographs.RESULTSSixty-nine patients with FTSG repairs of nasal alar defects were identified. 51 of 69 patients (73.9%) had the cheek donor site, and 18 of 69 patients (26.1%) had a noncheek donor site. The mean (SD) rater visual analog score for both cohorts was good with no significant difference (cheek: 65.9 [13.8]; noncheek: 66.1 [15.3]; p = .96). A notable difference in the complication rate by donor site was observed (cheek: 6.9%, noncheek: 16.7%; p = .13), although it did not reach significance.CONCLUSIONThe cheek is a reliable FTSG donor site for nasal alar defects after Mohs micrographic surgery, with a trend toward fewer complications.