James Gatherwright’s research while affiliated with Cleveland Clinic and other places

Background While numerous studies have demonstrated enhanced hair growth following platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatments in patients with male and female pattern hair loss, no study has demonstrated its impact on quality of life (QoL) using a validated tool.Objective This prospective study aimed to assess the psychological impact of PRP treatment for hair loss.MethodsPRP scalp injections were repeated monthly for the first 3 months, then quarterly for 1 year, and annually thereafter. HAIRDEX 48, a validated scale assessing QoL for patients with alopecia, was administered before PRP and at each visit. Scores were interpolated on a 0–100 scale: 0 representing highest QoL, 100 lowest, and compared using paired t-tests.ResultsNinety-two patients receiving PRP were analyzed. Mean age was 48.2 ± 17.4 years and 55% were male. Patients had an average of 4 ± 2 treatments; most (60%) had ≥4. Thirty patients (33%) completed both pre- and post-PRP questionnaires. Prior to PRP, 61% tried minoxidil, 16% finasteride, and 1% hair transplant.Total HAIRDEX scores improved from a mean of 23.2 ± 15.4 to 19.7 ± 11.3 after 3–5 months after PRP (p < 0.001). There were also decreases in symptoms (10.0 ± 12.0 vs. 9.6 ± 10.8, p < 0.001), functioning (16.1 ± 18.1 vs. 13.3 ± 12.6, p < 0.001), and emotions domains (37.7 ± 24.1 vs. 32.2 ± 18.9, p < 0001). For stigmatization and self-confidence domains, improvements from pre-PRP were significant at 3–5 months (21.2 ± 16.8 vs. 17.4 ± 12.1; p < 0.001 and 24.8 ± 17.7 vs. 20.9 ± 15.5; p < 0.001, respectively) and >6 months (18.9 ± 13.9; p < 0.001 and19.5 ± 18.6; p = 0.008, respectively).ConclusionsPRP improves QoL and is an effective part of multimodal therapy for hair loss.Level of Evidence IVThis journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Unlabelled: Use of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) for tissue expander breast reconstruction remains controversial with an uncertain safety and efficacy profile. This study analyzes the rates and factors for reoperation and postoperative infection in patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction with and without ADM. Methods: Patients who underwent breast reconstruction with and without ADM were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database utilizing CPT codes. Covariates included patient demographics, preoperative comorbidities, and operative characteristics, while outcomes of interest were postoperative infection and reoperation. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of adverse outcomes. Results: There were 8334 patients in the ADM cohort and 12,451 patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction without ADM. There were significantly fewer reoperations in the non-ADM cohort (5.4%) compared to the ADM cohort (7.7%) (P < 0.0001), with infection and hematoma as the most common etiologies in both cohorts. Surgical infections were also more prevalent in the ADM cohort (4.7%) compared with the non-ADM cohort (3.6%) (P < 0.0001). Univariate and multivariate analysis of the tissue expander breast reconstruction cohort revealed race, obesity, hypertension, smoking status, albumin, and operative time as predictive for infection risk, while race, obesity, hypertension, smoking, albumin, operative time, and age were significant for reoperation. Conclusion: Our study of 20,817 patients revealed significantly higher risk of infection and reoperation in patients who underwent breast reconstruction utilizing ADM versus without ADM. Patients considering ADM for breast reconstruction should engage in discussion with their surgeon about complications, aesthetics, and cost.

Background: Head and neck reconstruction is challenging because of the functional requirements of movement, sensation, and cosmesis of this highly visible region. This study is the first to compare Novosorb biodegradable temporizing matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone (CCS) skin substitutes for reconstruction of soft tissue head and neck wounds. Methods: This retrospective review included adults who underwent wound reconstruction of the head/neck with either BTM or CCS between 2015 and 2020. Patient-level data, complications, and closure rates were compared. Results: The review identified 15 patients: 5 who received BTM and 10 who received CCS. Mean age at dermal template placement was 55 (range, 28-79) years. Race, sex, smoking status, medical comorbidities, defect size, radiation history, prior surgeries, and follow-up time were not significantly different between groups. Wound etiologies for BTM and CCS included burn (40% vs 60%), trauma (20% vs 20%), surgical wounds (20% vs 20%), and skin cancer (20% vs 0%), respectively (P = .026). Skin grafts were placed in 8 (80%) wounds after CCS placement, compared with 3 (60%) after BTM (P = .670). Template reapplication was required in 2 (40%) BTM wounds and 3 (30%) CCS wounds (P = 1.0). Infection, hematoma, and seroma were comparable between groups, although skin graft failure was higher in the CCS group at 3 (37.5%) compared with 0 for BTM (P = .506). More secondary procedures were required after CCS placement (CCS, 1.9 ± 2.2; BTM, 0.9 ± 0.8; P = .090). Definitive closure in patients not lost to follow-up occurred in 4 (100%) BTM and 6 (75%) CCS cases (P = 1.0). Conclusions: Head and neck wounds treated with BTM had comparable closure and complication rates as CCS bilayer and required fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts. These findings suggest that BTM is safe and efficacious for application in head and neck wounds and may be considered as an economical alternative.

Objective This study aims to compare outcomes between Novosorb Biodegradable Temporizing Matrix (BTM) and Integra collagen-chondroitin silicone for upper-extremity wound reconstruction. Methods This retrospective study analyzed adult patients who underwent wound reconstruction with either BTM or Integra at our institution between 2015 and 2020. Results Forty-eight patients were included: 31 (64.6%) BTM and 17 (35.4%) Integra. Mean age was 44.0 (range: 18–68) years. Age, race, sex, smoking, comorbidities, and defect size were similar between groups. Wound etiologies included 12 (25.0%) burn, 22 (45.8%) trauma, and others. Median template size was 133 cm2 for BTM and 104 cm2 for Integra (p = 0.526). Skin grafting was performed after 14 (45.2%) and 14 (82.4%) wounds treated with BTM and Integra, respectively (p = 0.028). Template complications of infection and dehiscence were comparable. Skin-graft complications occurred in five (35.7%) and three (21.4%) wounds in BTM and Integra, respectively (p = 0.031). Skin-graft failure rates were comparable (p = 0.121). Mean number of secondary procedures required after template placement was higher in the Integra group (BTM, 1.0; Integra, 1.9; p = 0.090). Final healing was achieved in 17 (54.8%) BTM and 11 (64.7%) Integra wounds (p = 0.694). Median time to healing was 4.1 months after BTM and 2.6 months after Integra placement (p = 0.014). Conclusion Compared with Integra, BTM achieved comparable wound healing and complication rates. Fewer secondary procedures and skin grafts were observed in BTM wounds, likely as a result of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. At our institution, 100 cm2 of product costs $850 for BTM and$3,150 for Integra, suggesting BTM as an economical alternative to fulfill the high functional and aesthetic requirements of upper-extremity wounds.

Background Subjective online physician evaluation is an important component of patient decision-making. Understanding reviews may improve satisfaction and build positive online reputation. Objectives Our objective was to analyze and compare the top predictive factors driving patient satisfaction across the most popular plastic surgery procedures. Methods Online reviews were analyzed from RealSelf, Yelp, and Google for the five highest-rated plastic surgeons of the six metropolitan areas. Blank, non-English, consultation, duplicate, and unrelated reviews were excluded. Data from free-text reviews included physician rating, patient-reported reasons for rating, procedure, and complications. Univariate analysis was performed to compare predictive factors of online ratings. Results 11,078 reviews were included. RealSelf the highest average rating (4.77), while Yelp had the lowest (4.66). Reviews in Miami, Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago were mostly published on RealSelf, while Houston and Los Angeles most used Google and Yelp, respectively. Reconstructive procedures were rated significantly higher than cosmetic procedures (p = 0.035). Aesthetic appearance was the strongest predictor of rating across all procedures. Buccal fat removal (98.8%) and abdominoplasty (98.1%) had highest satisfaction, while Brazilian butt lift had the lowest (88.2%) (p < 0.001). Additional significant contributors included staff interaction, bedside manner, health outcomes, complications, and postoperative care (p < 0.001). Conclusions While aesthetic outcome is an important predictor of satisfaction, other aspects of care, such as bedside manner and staff interaction, provide an important foundation of support. Excellent patient-surgeon communication and postoperative care may mitigate patient dissatisfaction and elicit high-satisfaction online patient reviews.