Background: We aimed to longitudinally study the relative research contributions of US and international plastic surgeons by evaluating publications within the premier plastic surgery journal over the last 2 decades. We hypothesized that even with an increased pressure to publish in this journal, the relative research contributions from American plastic surgeons will continue to be the largest overall and in all subspecialties. Methods: Data for the surgical subspecialty, corresponding author’s country of origin, and region were extracted from all original articles in 2 randomly selected monthly issues of Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) from the last 2 decades to evaluate longitudinal trends. Data were also extracted from all of the original articles published in PRS for the last 3 years to analyze the recent distribution of research output. Results: During the last 2 decades, the relative proportion of total original articles written by US authors has increased. They have published proportionally more articles in the Reconstructive and Breast field while publishing relatively less in the hand/peripheral nerve field. From the first decade of analysis, US authors wrote relatively fewer articles in the hand/peripheral nerve field, whereas in the second decade, the US authors wrote relatively fewer articles in the Experimental field. In the last 3 years, US authors published relatively fewer articles in the Experimental and Cosmetic fields. Conclusions: Each country’s scientific productivity in PRS is related to funding, interest, patients’ demand, and healthcare market pressure. In this study, we see that these factors influence trends within research publications over the last 2 decades.

Background: Central nervous system complications are reported in an increasing number of patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). COVID-19–related Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is of particular importance given its association with higher mortality rates and prolonged respiratory failure. Review Summary: We conducted a systematic review of published cases for COVID-19–related GBS, and provide a summary of clinical management strategies for these cases. Sixty-three studies, including 86 patients, were included. Seventy-six cases with reported outcome data were eligible for the outcome analysis. Ninety-nine percent of patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 before diagnosis of GBS (median: 14 d prior, interquartile range: 7 to 20). Intravenous immunotherapy (intravenous immunoglobulin: 0.4 g/kg/d for 5 d) was the most frequently used treatment approach. The review indicated that the outcome was not favorable in 26% of cases (persistent neurological deficits). A mortality rate of 3.5% was observed in patients with COVID-19–related GBS. Conclusions: Although evidence to support specific treatments is lacking, clinicians should consider the benefits of immunotherapy and plasma exchange in addition to the standard antimicrobial and supportive therapies for patients who meet the diagnostic criteria for acute sensory and motor polyradiculoneuritis. Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment alone is not shown to result in improved outcomes or mortality. More extensive studies aimed at exploring the neurological manifestations and complications of COVID-19 and distinctive treatment options for COVID-19–related GBS are warranted.

No abstract