http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Plastic surgery and specialty creep: an analysis of publication trends
Ethan L. Mackenzie,Jeffrey D. Larson,Samuel O. Poore 대한성형외과학회 2021 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.48 No.6
Background Many surgical specialties have had pioneering influences from plastic surgeons. However, many of these areas of practice have evolved to include surgeons from diverse training backgrounds. This raises the question as to whether the prominence of other specialties in clinical practice translates to greater research productivity in these areas. The objective of this paper is to investigate the publication volumes of plastic surgeons in selected areas of practice compared to surgeons from other disciplines. Methods PubMed was used to examine publication trends in areas associated with plastic surgery. Searches for the following topics were performed: head and neck reconstruction, hand surgery, breast reconstruction, ventral hernia repair, abdominal component separation, brachial plexus injury, craniofacial surgery, and aesthetic surgery. Affiliation tags were used to examine contributions from nine specialties. Web of Science was used to identify the top cited articles for the last 10 years in each area. Results Articles by non-plastic surgeons comprise the majority of the literature for all areas of practice studied except for breast reconstruction and aesthetic surgery. Despite this, plastic surgeons contributed the greatest number of top cited articles over the last 10 years for five of the areas of practice. Conclusions While plastic surgeons do not contribute the greatest proportion of articles published each year in several of the selected areas of practice, they do publish a larger number of articles that are the most cited. Plastic surgeons remain the dominant academic force in terms of volume and citations for both breast and aesthetic surgery.
Evalina S. Bond,Carol E. Soteropulos,Samuel O. Poore 대한성형외과학회 2022 Archives of Plastic Surgery Vol.49 No.3
Prior abdominal liposuction can be viewed as a relative or absolute contraindication to abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction given concerns for damaged perforators and scarring complicating intraoperative dissection. This systematic review aims to explore the outcomes of abdominally based breast reconstruction in patients with a history of abdominal liposuction. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses-guided literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from the earliest available date through June 2020. Deep inferior epigastric perforator, muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM), superficial inferior epigastric artery, and pedicled TRAM flaps were included for evaluation. Complications included total or partial flap loss, fat necrosis, seroma, delayed wound healing, and donor site complications. After inclusion criteria were applied, 336 nonduplicate articles were screened, yielding 11 for final review, representing 55 flaps in 43 patients. There was no instance of total flap loss, eight (14.5%) flaps developed partial loss or fat necrosis, three (5.4%) flaps had delayed wound healing, and two (4.6%) patients had donor site complications. Most authors (8/11) utilized some type of preoperative imaging. Doppler ultrasonography was the most used modality, and these patients had the lowest rate of partial flap loss or flap fat necrosis (8%), followed by those without any preoperative imaging (10%). In conclusion, this review supports that patients undergoing abdominally based autologous breast reconstruction with a history of abdominal liposuction are not at an increased risk of flap or donor site complications. Although preoperative imaging was common, it did not reliably decrease complications. Further prospective studies are needed to address the role of imaging in improving outcomes.