Browsing by Subject "reconstruction"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Impact of obesity on male urethral sling outcomes
    (Sage, 2020-06-09) Monn, M. Francesca; Jarvis, Hannah V.; Gardner, Thomas A.; Mellon, Matthew J.; Urology, School of Medicine
    Background: The impact of obesity on AdVance male urethral sling outcomes has been poorly evaluated. Anecdotally, male urethral sling placement can be more challenging due to body habitus in obese patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of obesity on surgical complexity using operative time as a surrogate and secondarily to evaluate the impact on postoperative pad use. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed using all men who underwent AdVance male urethral sling placement at a single institution between 2013 and 2019. Descriptive statistics comparing obese and non-obese patients were performed. Results: A total of 62 patients were identified with median (IQR) follow up of 14 (4–33) months. Of these, 40 were non-obese and 22 (35.5%) were obese. When excluding patients who underwent concurrent surgery, the mean operative times for the non-obese versus obese cohorts were 61.8 min versus 73.7 min (p = 0.020). No Clavien 3–5 grade complications were noted. At follow up, 47.5% of the non-obese cohort and 63.6% of the obese cohort reported using one or more pads daily (p = 0.290). Four of the five patients with a history of radiation were among the patients wearing pads following male urethral sling placement. Conclusion: Obese men undergoing AdVance male urethral sling placement required increased operative time, potentially related to operative complexity, and a higher proportion of obese compared with non-obese patients required postoperative pads for continued urinary incontinence. Further research is required to better delineate the full impact of obesity on male urethral sling outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Reconstructive options following orbital exenteration
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2020-10) Yesensky, Jessica; Lebo, Nicole; Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine
    Purpose of review The purpose of this review is to examine current trends in reconstruction following orbital exenteration. Defects ranging from isolated exenteration to more complex midface resections are explored. Recent findings Goals of reconstruction include separating the sino-orbital cavities and creating a safe, stable wound that can withstand adjuvant radiation. When planning for orbital rehabilitation, it is important to create a concave cavity that can accommodate a prosthesis. This is primarily achieved through secondary granulation or split-thickness skin grafts. Recently, the use of dermal allografts has been investigated and shown good success with epithelization of the orbital cavity. For complex orbitomaxillectomy defects, musculocutaneous free tissue flaps remain the mainstay for reconstruction. Summary Reconstructive options following orbital exenteration are based on extent of the defect, need for postoperative radiation, and plans for orbital rehabilitation with prosthesis.