Breaking Down Silos: Collaboration in Head and Neck Reconstruction Research

Author(s):  
Amanda K. Silva ◽  
Eduardo D. Rodriguez ◽  
Adam S. Jacobson ◽  
Jamie P. Levine

Abstract Background Collaboration has been shown to be beneficial when we have complex problems and highly specialized groups, such as in head and neck reconstruction. Otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and oral maxillofacial surgeons perform head and neck reconstruction research. While the specialties represent unique backgrounds, the degree of interdisciplinary collaboration and subtopic focus is unknown. We sought to describe the frequency of interinstitutional interdisciplinary collaboration and examine the association of specialty with research subtopics. Methods Oral presentations from 2014 to 2018 focused on head and neck reconstruction or associated principles at the main reconstructive academic meetings in otolaryngology (American Head and Neck Society), plastic surgery (American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery), and oral maxillofacial surgery (American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons) were reviewed. Author specialty and institution data were recorded. All abstracts were assigned a research subtopic, chosen based on identified themes. Subtopic frequencies among the specialties were compared. Results Thirteen of 88 (15%) US institutions participate in interdisciplinary collaboration in head and neck reconstruction research. Of the remaining institutions, 23 (31%) have researchers performing parallel work and not collaborating. Certain research subtopics were more often presented by each specialty, representing differing interests. Conclusion Collaboration among head and neck reconstruction research at the US institutions is low compared with the potential. Specialties focus on different research subtopics, and therefore can benefit from working together.

2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (2) ◽  
pp. 467e-468e
Author(s):  
Z.-Hye Lee ◽  
David A. Daar ◽  
Adam S. Jacobson ◽  
Jamie P. Levine

2008 ◽  
Vol 139 (2_suppl) ◽  
pp. P133-P133
Author(s):  
Rene M Pena ◽  
Paul Dae-Gwon Kim ◽  
Mark R Rowe

Objectives The practice of head and neck reconstruction has been evolving over the past 15 years with the introduction of new surgical techniques, and increasing options for tissue harvest. We sought to investigate corresponding trends in the disciplines performing head and neck microvascular reconstruction. Methods 2 specialties for the proportion of head and neck microvascular reconstruction were compared: those performed by otolaryngologists and those done by plastics surgery. A 3-part study was performed to evaluate these trends: 1) Total case number of microvascular cases of otolaryngology residents and plastic surgery residents over the last 4 years was evaluated through the ACGME national data; 2) A poll of the percentage of otolaryngology residency programs that have their own microvascular reconstructive surgeon, and if that surgeon was hired within the last 5 years; and 3) The number of scientific articles published relating to microvascular head and neck reconstruction were systematically queried for 2 timeframes, (1995–2000) and (2002–2007). Results The national number of cases has steadily increased in the last 5 years. It has slowly increased compared to plastic surgery, but when all flaps are evaluated, it is not significant. We also found that the number of peer-reviewed articles relating to microvascular free flaps authored by otolaryngologists has increased. The data from the polls are still pending. Conclusions There is an increasing trend emerging in the practice of head and neck microvascular reconstruction, with an increase number of articles being authored and increased number of surgeries being performed by otolaryngolo-gists, compared to plastic surgeons.


Toukeibu Gan ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mitsuru SEKIDO ◽  
Hiroshi FURUKAWA ◽  
Toshihiko HAYASHI ◽  
Yuhei YAMAMOTO ◽  
Toshiyuki MINAMIMOTO

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (07) ◽  
pp. 516-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
James J. Drinane ◽  
John Drinane ◽  
Lakshmi Nair ◽  
Ashit Patel

Background Reconstruction of head and neck defects resulting from resection of head and neck masses is performed by both plastic surgeons and otolaryngologists. The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement (NSQIP) database allows one to directly compare the outcomes for a given procedure based upon specialty. The purpose of this study is to compare outcomes and resource utilization of microvascular head and neck reconstruction between plastic surgery and otolaryngology. Methods Institutional review board approval was obtained and NSQIP was queried from 2005 to 2015 with inclusion of Current Procedural Terminology codes for free tissue transfer performed for head and neck reconstruction. Outcomes were compared between cases having otolaryngology and plastic surgery as performing the free flap reconstruction. Results During 2005 to 2015, a total of 2,322 flaps were performed, 893 by plastic surgery and 1,429 by otolaryngology. Average length of stay (LOS) was 13.7 and 11.4 days for plastic surgery and otolaryngology, respectively. It was found that plastic surgery performed more osteocutaneous flaps than otolaryngology. Higher rates of superficial surgical site infection, deep surgical site infections, wound dehiscence, myocardial infarction, bleeding complications, sepsis, unplanned return to the operating room, and unplanned readmission were observed for patients treated by otolaryngology (p < 0.05). Conclusion This study shows plastic surgery patients have superior outcomes with regards to free tissue transfers of the head and neck when compared with otolaryngology patients. Although plastic surgery patients experienced a longer LOS, the significantly lower complication rate supports an overall more optimal resource utilization. Future studies may elucidate potential cost savings in patients treated by plastic surgery.


2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (03) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Pons ◽  
J. Masia ◽  
J. Sancho ◽  
J. Larrañaga ◽  
P. Serret

2021 ◽  
pp. 100330
Author(s):  
Alyssa Ovaitt ◽  
Matthew Fort ◽  
Kirk Withrow ◽  
Brian Hughley

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document