Hypertrophic scarring (HTS) is an aberrant form of wound healing that is associated with excessive deposition of extracellular matrix and connective tissue at the site of injury. In this review article, we provide an overview of normal (acute) wound healing phases (hemostasis, inflammation, proliferation, and remodeling). We next discuss the dysregulated and/or impaired mechanisms in wound healing phases that are associated with HTS development. We next discuss the animal models of HTS and their limitations, and review the current and emerging treatments of HTS.

Background This meta-regression aims to investigate risk factors for abdominal hernia and bulge in patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps and the effect of prophylactic mesh placement on postoperative complications. Methods A systematic search was conducted in July of 2022 in alignment with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Seventy-four studies published between 2000 and 2022 met the inclusion criteria. Sixty-four studies were included in the analysis for bulge and 71 studies were included in the analysis for hernia. Meta-regressions were run on the proportion of patients experiencing hernia or bulge to assess for patient risk factors and the role of prophylactic mesh placement. Proportions were transformed using the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine method. Results The average rates of hernia and bulge after DIEP flaps were found to be 0.18% and 1.26%, respectively. Increased age (β = 0.0059, p = 0.0117), prior abdominal surgery (β = 0.0008, p = 0.046), and pregnancy history (β = −0.0015, p = 0.0001) were significantly associated with hernia. Active smoking (β = 0.0032, p = 0.0262) and pregnancy history (β = 0.0019, p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with bulge. Neither the perforator vessel laterality nor the number of perforator vessels harvested had any association with hernia or bulge. Prophylactic mesh placement was not associated with hernia or bulge. Conclusion Understanding the comorbidities associated with hernia or bulge following DIEP flap breast reconstruction, such as advanced age, prior abdominal surgery, pregnancy history, and active smoking status, allows surgeons to proactively identify and educate high-risk patients. Future studies may further explore whether prophylactic mesh placement offers patients any benefit.

Reconstructive microsurgery remains a demanding field, requiring technical expertise and long operating hours. This places microsurgeons at increased risk of dissatisfaction and burnout. The co-surgeon model has been developed to mitigate these challenges. This study was designed to evaluate microsurgeon perspectives on the characteristics and impact of the co-surgeon model for microsurgical free flaps.An electronic anonymous survey was distributed via email to attending microsurgeon members of the American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgeons. The survey collected various demographic and practice-related information including Likert scale questions to assess microsurgeon perspectives on the utility of the co-surgeon model.A total of 862 microsurgeons received the survey, with 102 responses available for analysis. The average age of respondents was 46.6 (± 9.7) years. Most of the microsurgeons were male (71%) practicing in the United States (93%), with 74.5% of respondents utilizing a co-surgeon model in their practice. Bilateral breast flaps were the most common microsurgical procedure performed using a co-surgeon (85%), followed by head and neck free flaps (60%), with immediate lymphatic reconstruction being the least common (3.1%). On the day of the co-surgery case, the co-surgeon was more likely than the primary surgeon to have additional cases (68.4 and 36.4%, respectively), with the additional cases being rarely free flaps. More than 80% of microsurgeons stated that the co-surgeon model improves “very much” or “quite a bit” operative efficiency and duration, as well as surgeon well-being and career longevity.This study provides new insight into the utility of using a co-surgeon for free flap reconstruction by demonstrating that approximately 80% of microsurgeons have a positive perception of the model's impact on procedure efficiency, operative time, surgeon well-being, and career longevity. Therefore, adopting a co-surgeon model for microsurgical free flap reconstruction may be useful in reducing burnout and promoting well-being among microsurgeons.

Early mandibular distraction osteogenesis (MDO) can decrease upper airway and feeding complications in pediatric patients with micrognathia; however, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) complications like TMJ ankylosis (TMJA) may occur. TMJA can disturb pediatric patients’ function and craniofacial growth, resulting in significant physical and psychosocial consequences. Additional surgical procedures may also be required, increasing the burden of care on patients and their families. CMF surgeons must discuss the potential complications of early MDO surgery with families as well as potential solutions should these problems occur. This report presents the case of a 17-year-old male with a severe craniofacial anomaly with features of Treacher-Collins syndrome (TCS) and a surgical history of tracheostomy, cleft palate repair, mandibular reconstruction with harvested costochondral grafts, and MDO with resultant bilateral TMJA and limited mouth opening. The patient Was treated with bilateral custom alloplastic TMJ replacements and simultaneous maxillary DO using a Rigid External Distraction (RED) device.

Background: The use of a rigid external distraction (RED) is recognized as a viable treatment option for patients with severe maxillary and midface hypoplasia. However, there is limited research on the technical placement of the RED device and its impact on patient outcomes. This systematic review examined variations in RED placement as reported in published clinical photos from journal articles, discusses its potential connection to distraction outcomes, and provides suggestions for proper placement of the device. Material and Methods: Articles in which RED was utilized and included clinical photos of patients wearing the RED device were systematically reviewed using PRISMA guidelines. Data extraction and RED placement photo assessment were performed, including subjective analysis of the images and objective angular measurement of device placement. Results: Despite the reporting of satisfactory outcomes in 83% of the reviewed articles, 64% of the photos depicted variations to the recommended halo frame placement. Of these photos, the halo frame was angled inferiorly in 73.8% and 45.16% of those studies depicting inferiorly angled halos reported adverse events. The vertical bar placement was angled posteriorly in 45% of the articles, and 44.4% of these articles reported complications. Conclusion: Photos from the literature show a high variability in RED device placement, with varying outcomes and complication rates. When placed optimally, with consideration to technical placement details such as cranial pin placement and distraction vector angles, the RED system should allow predictable maxillary and midface advancements with minimal complications.