AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR RECONSTRUCTIVE MICROSURGERY

Abstract Background The American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM) annual meeting is a forum to present new research abstracts prior to peer-reviewed publication. The aim of this study is to determine the conversion rate, discrepancies, and time between presentation and publication. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted cross-referencing ASRM abstracts presented between 2014 and 2018 with peer-reviewed manuscripts. The title and authors of the abstract and manuscript, the journal of manuscript publication, and time in months between presentation and publication were recorded. The conversion rate was calculated as the proportion of publications to abstracts. Major discrepancies were defined as changes in the purpose, study design, methods, sample size, statistical analysis, results, or conclusions. Minor discrepancies were defined as changes in the title or authorship. Results Out of 667 oral abstract presentations, 361 (54%) resulted in publication. Of these abstracts, 53 were presented after their corresponding manuscripts were published. The mean conversion rate was 55.52 ± 10.17%. The mean time from presentation to publication was 13.83 months. Minor discrepancies were more frequent than major discrepancies (91 vs. 76%). The most common major and minor discrepancies involved changes in the results (63%) and authorship (79%), respectively. There was a significant association between the year of abstract presentation and whether the conclusion was changed (p = 0.001), but interyear relationships with all other discrepancies failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusion Only around half of abstracts presented at the annual ASRM conference have reached full publication in peer-reviewed journals, and most are undergoing significant changes between presentation and publication. This may be due to panel discussions at meetings suggesting study modifications, as well as revisions after careful peer review. Altering surgical practices may not be recommended based on abstracts' content.

Download Full-text

Current Practices in the Management of Postoperative Arterial Vasospasm in Microsurgery

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0037-1612601 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 34 (04) ◽

pp. 242-249 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Sergey Turin ◽

Robert Walton ◽

Gregory Dumanian ◽

John Hijjawi ◽

John LoGiudice ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Lower Limb ◽

Management Strategies ◽

Superior Thyroid Artery ◽

Recipient Vessel ◽

Root Cause ◽

Body Of Knowledge ◽

Epigastric Artery ◽

Arterial Vasospasm ◽

Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

American Society

Background Postoperative microvascular arterial vasospasm is a rare clinical entity. There are no published management algorithms and also the pathophysiology of this phenomenon has not been elucidated. Methods An email survey of American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery (ASRM) and World Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery (WSRM) members regarding their experiences with postoperative arterial vasospasm was conducted, returning 116 responses. A comprehensive literature search was conducted regarding the current body of knowledge on this entity. Results Sixty-five percent of respondents encountered cases where postoperative arterial vasospasm was clearly the cause of flap ischemia. The majority (62%) of surgeons believed a damaged segment of the artery was responsible for the spasm, with technical issues cited as the most likely cause. Sixty-two percent and 50% of surgeons used segmental resection of the recipient and donor vessels, respectively.Rated for proclivity to vasospasm, superficial inferior epigastric artery (SIEA) was the flap, superior thyroid artery (STA) the recipient vessel, and the lower limb the anatomic region most frequently mentioned.Most widely used management strategies were: topical vasodilators (91%), adventitial stripping (82%), and dilation of recipient and donor vessels (76%). Over 50% of surgeons used some type of vessel resection technique. Conclusions When flap ischemia is encountered without mechanical issues or thrombus, vasospasm can be the root cause. Certain vessels (SIEA, STA) and anatomic regions (lower limb) pose a higher risk for this phenomenon. When a vessel is affected, it is common practice to excise the questionable segment and use a graft as needed. Vessel resection as part of a multimodal approach can result in a reasonable salvage rate.

Download Full-text

Work-Related Musculoskeletal Discomfort and Injury in Microsurgeons

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1675177 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 35 (05) ◽

pp. 322-328 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Ashley Howarth ◽

Susan Hallbeck ◽

Raman Mahabir ◽

Valerie Lemaine ◽

Gregory Evans ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Well Being ◽

Musculoskeletal Discomfort ◽

Surgical Performance ◽

Work Related ◽

Increased Risk ◽

Surgical Ergonomics ◽

Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

American Society ◽

Loupe Magnification ◽

Question Survey

Background Long surgical procedures with loupe magnification and microscopes may put microsurgeons at an increased risk of musculoskeletal discomfort. Identifying the prevalence and impact of work-related musculoskeletal discomfort may guide preventive strategies to prolong well-being, job satisfaction, and career duration. Methods An online 29-question survey was designed to evaluate work-related musculoskeletal discomfort. The survey was created and distributed electronically through a private survey research center and was sent to the members of the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery. Results There were 117 respondents (16.7% response rate): 80% were men; 69% were aged 31 to 50 years; and 68% were in academic practice. On a scale of 0 to 10 (0, no pain and 10, worst pain), the median for work-related musculoskeletal discomfort for surgery without loupes or microscope was 2; with loupes, 4; and with a microscope, 5. Pain was most common in the neck. Half of the surgeons reported pain within 4 hours of surgery, and 57% feared that pain would influence future surgical performance. Surgeon discomfort affected posture (72%), stamina (36%), sleep (29%), relationships (25%), concentration (22%), and surgical speed (19%). Tremor caused by the discomfort occurred in 8%. Medical treatment for discomfort was sought by 29%. Time off work for treatment occurred for 8%. Conclusion Work-related musculoskeletal discomfort can affect many aspects of a microsurgeon's life and has the potential to limit a surgeon's ability to operate. Therefore, more emphasis is needed in the surgical community on the important issues of occupational health and surgical ergonomics for microsurgeons.

Download Full-text

American Society of Reconstructive Microsurgery Meeting

Annals of Plastic Surgery ◽

10.1097/00000637-198606000-00022 ◽

1986 ◽

Vol 16 (6) ◽

pp. A-18

Author(s):

&NA;

Keyword(s):

Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

American Society

Download Full-text

Breaking Down Silos: Collaboration in Head and Neck Reconstruction Research

Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

10.1055/s-0040-1716322 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Amanda K. Silva ◽

Eduardo D. Rodriguez ◽

Adam S. Jacobson ◽

Jamie P. Levine

Keyword(s):

Head And Neck ◽

Plastic Surgery ◽

Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽

Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

Head And Neck Reconstruction ◽

Neck Reconstruction ◽

Reconstructive Microsurgery ◽

Working Together ◽

American Society ◽

Oral Presentations

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.

Download Full-text