Explore every episode of the podcast Plastics in Practice (Resident Review)

Hand infections deteriorate fast — the same anatomy that gives the hand its function turns ordinary swelling into ischemia, tendon necrosis, and permanent loss of motion. This episode walks through how to recognize and manage everything from paronychia and felon to pyogenic flexor tenosynovitis, deep space infections, bite injuries, and necrotizing fasciitis — with the surgical pitfalls every resident needs to know cold.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we cover the anatomy that makes the hand vulnerable, when to splint and when to cut, the Kanavel signs you'll be quizzed on, the herpetic whitlow trap, the high-mortality red flags of nec fasc, and how rising community-acquired MRSA changes empiric antibiotic selection.

Key takeaways:

• Drainage is non-negotiable for any abscess. Antibiotics are an adjunct, not a substitute.

• Never infiltrate local anesthesia into cellulitis — it spreads the infection. Use regional blocks for deep space infections.

• Herpetic whitlow is medical, not surgical. Cutting risks systemic viral spread. Confirm with Tzanck smear.

• Kanavel's four signs of pyogenic flexor tenosynovitis: semi-flexed digit, fusiform swelling, tenderness along the sheath, pain on passive extension.

• Clenched-fist bite injuries seed the MCP joint. Polymicrobial with Eikenella — admit, x-ray, tetanus, and explore in the OR if the extensor mechanism is breached.

• Necrotizing fasciitis carries up to 40% mortality. Bright shiny skin, nonpitting edema, violaceous patches — broad-spectrum antibiotics and aggressive debridement now.

• Community-acquired MRSA is rising. Culture before empiric antibiotics whenever possible.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #HandSurgery #HandInfections #UpperExtremity #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #Tenosynovitis

Upper extremity surgery is, at its core, a regional anesthesia specialty. Choose the right block in the right place and most hand and arm cases never need general anesthesia.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we work through the practical anesthesia decision tree for the upper extremity: brachial plexus block locations and their trade-offs, peripheral nerve blocks at the elbow and wrist, the Bier block, digital block techniques, and the modern, evidence-based truth about epinephrine in the finger.

Key takeaways:

- Severe systemic toxicity is almost always an intravascular accident - aspirate before every injection, and never trust pain as a safety signal in a sedated or proximally blocked patient.

- Interscalene for the shoulder, supraclavicular for fast complete arm anesthesia, infraclavicular for elbow and distal, axillary for the hand.

- Brachial plexus blocks take 15-25 minutes to mature - perform them in a dedicated block area about 30 minutes before incision.

- Bier blocks fit cases under 60 minutes. Keep the tourniquet up for 30 minutes minimum and cycle it down in three releases.

- Epinephrine 1:200,000 is safe in fingers and hands - the necrosis fears come from pre-1950s procaine and cocaine reports.

- Single subcutaneous volar digital block beats the transthecal block on onset and pain.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/

Free Study Guides: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #HandSurgery #UpperExtremity #RegionalAnesthesia #BrachialPlexus #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice

Every hand case rests on the same foundation: knowing which joints need mobility, which need stability, and how to run an acute hand with a trauma-first mindset. Get this layer right, and every chapter after it makes sense.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we cover the foundational anatomy and operative principles of the upper extremity: how the thumb, finger, and wrist joints differ in their tolerance for stiffness and instability; the classic deformities (swan-neck, boutonniere, DISI, VISI) and the ligaments that produce them; the acute hand workup from "life over limb" through ER reduction; how to image and describe fractures in anatomic terms rather than eponyms; intrinsic plus splinting; safe tourniquet use; Bruner incisions; and why elevation is the single most important postoperative instruction you'll ever give.

Key takeaways:

• MCP joints have low tolerance for stiffness; the DIP tolerates it well - stability matters more there than motion.
• Volar plate disruption at the PIP causes swan-neck; central slip rupture causes boutonniere - opposite mechanisms, opposite deformities.
• Scapholunate ligament tear leads to DISI; lunotriquetral tear leads to VISI. The lunate follows the ligament that's still intact.
• Tourniquet time should be 90 to 120 minutes max to avoid ischemic reperfusion injury; pressure about 100 mmHg above systolic.
• Splint in the intrinsic plus position: wrist in slight extension, MCPs flexed, IPs extended.
• Routine soft-tissue cases under 2 hours: postop antibiotics show no clear benefit. Open fractures and bony work: 24 hours of perioperative IV coverage.
• Bruner zigzag incisions across the volar finger and palm prevent contracture; never cross flexion creases perpendicularly.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/

Free Study Guides: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #HandSurgery #UpperExtremity #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #HandAnatomy #BoardReview

Lymphedema is the chronic disease plastic surgeons are best positioned to treat — and the most commonly mismanaged. After axillary node dissection, up to 50% of breast cancer patients develop it, and most never get the early, disciplined care that prevents progression to fibrofatty disease.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we review the essentials of lymphedema management — from how the lymphatic system fails to the diagnostic threshold (2 cm or 200 ml difference), staging by the International Society of Lymphology, the role of Complex Decongestive Therapy as the gold-standard nonsurgical approach, and how to think about surgery: physiologic methods like lymphaticovenous bypass and vascularized lymph node transfer, versus reductive options like liposuction and direct excision. We also cover the late complications residents should not miss — recurrent cellulitis, and the rare but devastating Stewart-Treves lymphangiosarcoma.

Key Takeaways:

• Diagnostic threshold: limb circumference difference > 2 cm or volume increase > 200 ml is clinically significant.
• Up to 50% of patients with axillary lymph node dissection develop lymphedema; only 4–7% after sentinel node biopsy.
• Complex Decongestive Therapy (CDT) is the gold-standard nonsurgical management — Phase 1 intensive (4–6 weeks), Phase 2 maintenance for life.
• ISL staging: Stage 0 latent → Stage I pitting → Stage II non-pitting fibrofatty → Stage III lymphostatic elephantiasis.
• Physiologic surgery (lymphaticovenous bypass, vascularized lymph node transfer) can reduce limb volume ~35% at 12 months in selected patients.
• Liposuction is the workhorse for non-pitting, fibrofatty lymphedema — requires ≥ 600 ml volume difference, failed 3 months of CDT, and lifelong compression after surgery.
• Stewart-Treves lymphangiosarcoma: rare but aggressive — 5-year survival < 10%, average survival 19 months after diagnosis. Always biopsy suspicious nodules in a long-standing lymphedematous limb.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/
📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #Lymphedema #BreastReconstruction #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #Microsurgery #Liposuction

Pressure sores are the wound the plastic surgeon gets consulted on after everything else has gone wrong — and the recurrence rate is brutal if you skip the basics. The lesson nobody teaches you in residency is that the surgery is the easy part.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we review the basics of pressure sore management: the pathophysiology of pressure-time injury, the six-stage NPUAP system, what you absolutely have to optimize preoperatively (albumin, A1c, spasm, contractures, osteomyelitis), how to choose between fasciocutaneous and musculocutaneous flaps for ischial, sacral, and trochanteric defects, and why the recurrence numbers stay high no matter what flap you pick.

Key takeaways:

- Tissue injury starts deep — muscle over bone fails first, the skin lesion is just the tip of the iceberg.

- Capillary perfusion fails above ~32 mm Hg; five minutes of off-loading every two hours is enough to prevent breakdown even at high pressures.

- Pressure x time is parabolic: 500 mm Hg for 2 hours or 100 mm Hg for 10 hours both kill muscle. Skin ulcerates last.

- Optimize before you operate: albumin >2.0 g/dL, A1c <6%, control spasm (baclofen, dantrolene, botulinum toxin), treat osteomyelitis surgically — not medically.

- Avoid primary closure and skin grafts — these wounds have a true tissue deficit. Use flaps.

- Fasciocutaneous vs. myocutaneous: in a 94-patient series there was no difference in recurrence, complications, or morbidity — pick the flap that preserves future options.

- Avoid radical ostectomy — total ischiectomy redistributes pressure and creates the next ulcer.

- Recurrence after flap closure runs ~39%; the most vulnerable window is the first 15–22 months.

- Watch for Marjolin ulcer in long-standing wounds — aggressive SCC with metastatic rates over 60%; wide excision is the answer.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #PressureSores #WoundCare #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #Reconstruction #PressureUlcer

Few regions punish poor planning like the perineum — the pelvic outlet sits at the crossroads of the urinary, gynecologic, and GI tracts, and the wrong flap choice in an irradiated or contaminated field gets you back in the OR fast.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we walk through the core principles of perineal reconstruction: anatomy and vascular supply, the reconstructive ladder, pelvic dead-space management, and the workhorse flaps you actually need to know — VRAM, gracilis, posterior thigh, Singapore, and the greater omentum. We finish with functional restoration in both female and male patients, including the Cordeiro classification for acquired vaginal defects, scrotal reconstruction after Fournier's, and the basics of microsurgical penile replantation.

Key takeaways:

• The perineum is a diamond between the pubic symphysis, ischial tuberosities, and coccyx — anterior urogenital triangle and posterior anal triangle.¹
• Pelvic dead space after APR or exenteration is dangerous — fill it with a well-vascularized flap to cut abscess, dehiscence, and bowel-obstruction risk.²
• VRAM is the workhorse for combined pelvic and perineal defects; it beats thigh flaps on major complications in this setting.³
• Gracilis is the workhorse when you don't want a laparotomy — versatile, low donor morbidity, but watch the short pedicle and unreliable skin paddle for large defects.⁴
• Singapore flap is the go-to for vaginal reconstruction — sensate, axial, and preserved by the superficial perineal artery.
• Use the Cordeiro classification for acquired vaginal defects: IA → Singapore, IB → VRAM, IIA → rolled rectus, IIB → bilateral gracilis.⁵
• Scrotal reconstruction after Fournier's: up to 50% primary closure; otherwise meshed STSG with tunica vaginalis intact and spermatic cords sewn together first.⁶
• Penile replantation: microsurgical repair within 6 h warm or 16 h cold ischemia — urethra, tunica albuginea, dorsal artery and vein, dorsal nerve, plus suprapubic cystostomy.⁶

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/
📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #PerinealReconstruction #VRAM #PlasticsInPractice #FournierGangrene #VaginalReconstruction #SurgicalEducation

References (AMA):

1. Tran PH, Lemaine V. Reconstruction of the perineum. In: Thorne CH, ed. Grabb & Smith's Plastic Surgery. 8th ed.
2. Butler CE, Rodriguez-Bigas MA. Pelvic reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection: is it worthwhile? Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12:91-94.
3. Nelson RA, Butler CE. Surgical outcomes of VRAM versus thigh flaps for immediate reconstruction of pelvic and perineal cancer resection defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:175-183.
4. Friedman JD, Reece GR, Eldor L. The utility of the posterior thigh flap for complex pelvic and perineal reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:146-155.
5. Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL, Disa JJ. A classification system and reconstructive algorithm for acquired vaginal defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110:1058-1065.
6. Campbell MF, Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR. Campbell-Walsh Urology. 9th ed. Saunders; 2007.

Saving a foot is rarely about the flap. It's about the angiosome you re-perfuse, the millimeters of debridement you take, and whether you lengthen a tight Achilles before you ever think about closure.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we cover the principles of foot and ankle reconstruction: the six angiosomes and how they should drive every revascularization, incision, and flap design; the role of the multidisciplinary team in salvaging a limb that traditionally would have been amputated; and the practical algorithm for moving a chronic wound to closure — debridement, NPWT, dermal templates, and the simple techniques that resolve roughly 90% of these wounds without ever needing a microsurgical free flap. We finish with a location-by-location reconstructive playbook from forefoot to hindfoot, including why Achilles tendon lengthening is the single highest-yield biomechanical move in the diabetic forefoot.

Key takeaways:

- The 5-year mortality after major lower-limb amputation in diabetics exceeds 50% — higher than colon or breast cancer.

- The angiosome concept divides the foot into six vascular territories; direct revascularization of the affected angiosome increases healing 50% and decreases major amputation fourfold.

- Biofilm exists in >90% of chronic wounds and penetrates up to 4 mm — debridement, not coverage, is the rate-limiting step.

- Achilles tendon lengthening cuts diabetic forefoot ulcer recurrence in half at 2 years and is the single highest-yield biomechanical intervention.

- Roughly 90% of foot and ankle wounds heal with simple techniques; only ~10% require flap reconstruction.

- For plantar coverage, the medial plantar fasciocutaneous flap remains the workhorse — sensate, durable, glabrous skin with a wide arc of rotation.

- Free flaps to the foot have the highest failure rate of any anatomic location; anastomose outside the zone of injury and use end-to-side to spare a major vessel.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #FootAndAnkleReconstruction #LimbSalvage #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #DiabeticFoot #Microsurgery

Lower extremity reconstruction is the most unforgiving testing ground in plastic surgery — every decision is graded by whether the patient can bear weight, walk, and protect a sensate foot for the rest of their life.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we walk through the core principles of lower extremity salvage: the zone-of-injury concept, when to fix vs. amputate, fracture management, soft-tissue coverage by leg third, and the trade-offs between limb salvage and a well-fit below-knee amputation.

Key takeaways

• Salvage is judged against amputation, not “normal.” The goal is a limb more functional than a prosthesis — loss of the tibial nerve and plantar sensibility is a relative contraindication.
• Stabilize the skeleton first. Vascular and nerve repairs done before fixation are routinely disrupted during fracture reduction; external fixation is the workhorse for grade IIIB / IIIC injuries.
• Early soft-tissue coverage wins. Closure within 72 hours of injury carries the lowest complication rate; delayed closure (1–6 weeks) climbs to ~50%.
• Match the flap to the leg third: gastrocnemius proximal, soleus middle, free tissue distal.
• Bone gaps have a tiered answer: cancellous graft for short defects, Ilizarov distraction for 4–8 cm gaps, vascularized fibula up to ~24 cm.
• VAC therapy buys time, not closure. It improves the bed and reduces flap size, but use beyond 7 days is associated with higher infection and amputation rates in IIIB tibias.
• BKA is a reconstructive choice, not a failure. It adds ~25% to the energy cost of ambulation vs. ~65% for AKA; preserve the knee whenever possible, including with a foot-fillet free flap from the amputated part.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/
📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #LowerExtremityReconstruction #LimbSalvage #PlasticsInPractice #Microsurgery #FreeFlap

Abdominal wall reconstruction is where plastic surgery principles get tested in real time — and it's where most failures start with one wrong assumption about force distribution.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we review the basics of abdominal wall reconstruction: how to think about the abdomen as a pressurized cylinder, why supported repairs beat bridged repairs almost every time, how to read the components separation technique like a physiology problem instead of a memorization problem, and how to choose between synthetic and bioprosthetic mesh in a contaminated field. We close with soft tissue strategy — when to skin graft early, when to reach for a perforator flap, and how to decide between rebuilding the wall first or rebuilding the cover first.

Key takeaways:

• Hernias expand because sutures cut through tissue like a wire through ice — load-sharing supported repairs are the answer, not bigger primary sutures.
• Large hernias convert isometric abdominal contraction into isotonic shortening, derailing diaphragm function and torso mechanics — repair restores physiology, not just anatomy.
• Components separation can move each rectus 8–10 cm to the midline through external oblique release alone; preserving periumbilical perforators is what keeps the skin alive.
• Synthetic mesh is for clean fields. Bioprosthetic mesh is for contamination, radiation, bowel suture lines, or any field where the soft tissue cover might fail.
• In the open abdomen, early skin grafting over granulated bowel is your friend — it heals in two dimensions and tolerates poor nutrition far better than flaps.
• If the hernia is expanding, it's ready to repair — that means the adhesions have softened enough to dissect cleanly.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/
📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #AbdominalWallReconstruction #HerniaRepair #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #GeneralSurgery #ComponentsSeparation

Chest wall reconstruction is where rigid skeletal support and versatile soft tissue coverage meet — and where a wrong flap choice or a missed debridement step turns a small defect into a respiratory disaster.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we review the basics of chest wall reconstruction: the anatomy that drives every decision, when you actually need to rebuild the skeleton, how to classify and treat sternal wound infections, and how to pick the right flap based on the location and depth of the defect.

Key takeaways:

• Skeletal reconstruction is classically indicated for defects involving four or more ribs or greater than 5 cm in diameter — but posterior and superior defects often tolerate soft tissue coverage alone.¹
• Methylmethacrylate–mesh "sandwich" gives you rigid protection for large anterior defects, but its rigidity can cost you respiratory comfort.¹
• Pectoralis major is the workhorse for the upper and middle sternum; for the lower sternum, think IMA-perforator turnover flap or rectus abdominis (VRAM/TRAM).²
• Omentum is your bailout when local flaps fail — large surface area, thin, perfect for wrapping vascular grafts — but you're paying for it with a laparotomy.³
• Bilateral IMA harvest strips the sternum of its segmental blood supply and dramatically raises mediastinitis risk; sternal plating is reserved for high-risk re-operative patients.⁴
• Sternal wound infections are classified by timing: Class 1 (early, sterile), Class 2 (1–3 weeks, purulent mediastinitis), Class 3 (chronic draining sinus). Class 2 and 3 demand thorough debridement plus flap coverage.⁵
• Single-stage radical debridement with concurrent flap coverage has comparable success to staged debridement — pick based on the patient and the wound, not dogma.⁵

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/
📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #ChestWallReconstruction #ReconstructiveSurgery #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #Mediastinitis #FlapSurgery

References:

1. Carey JN, Otake LR, Echo A, Lee GK. Chest Wall Reconstruction. In: Thorne CH, ed. Grabb and Smith's Plastic Surgery. 7th ed. Wolters Kluwer; 2014.
2. Coleman JJ 3rd, Bostwick J. Rectus abdominis muscle-musculocutaneous flap in chest-wall reconstruction. Surg Clin North Am. 1989 Oct;69(5):1007-1027.
3. Villa MT, Chang DW. Muscle and omental flaps for chest wall reconstruction. Thorac Surg Clin. 2010 Nov;20(4):543-550.
4. Arnold PG, Pairolero PC. Chest-wall reconstruction: an account of 500 consecutive patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996 Oct;98(5):804-810.
5. Lee CH, Hsien JH, Tang YB, Chen HC. Reconstruction for sternal osteomyelitis at the lower third of sternum. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010 Apr;63(4):633-641.

Hair restoration is one of the most planning-dependent procedures in plastic surgery — a single wrong call on the hairline or the donor strip can show up for the rest of the patient's life.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice we walk through what residents actually need to know about modern hair transplantation: how to evaluate the donor area, how to think about lifetime donor yield, the trade-offs between strip excision and FUE, graft preparation and the out-of-body clock, recipient site design (hairline placement, angle and direction, ethnic and gender variations), postoperative management, and where finasteride, minoxidil, and PRP fit in.

Key takeaways:

The Safe Donor Area (SDA) defines what is truly permanent — and a 30-year-old destined for Norwood V/VI averages roughly 5,393–6,404 lifetime FUs from average-density donor scalp.¹

Strip excision still dominates (~88.5% of cases) vs. FUE (~11.5%); transection rates can be pushed below 10–15% with tumescent solutions and skin-hook technique.²

Graft survival drops about 1% per hour out of body — chilled saline gives ~88% survival at 8 hours; pear-shaped grafts under 6× magnification protect the bulb, sebaceous glands, and dermal papilla.³

Hairline placement: never too low. The mid-frontal point lives where the vertical forehead transitions to the horizontal scalp, ~7–10 cm above the glabella. Build in micro- and macro-irregularities so it never reads as a wall.⁴

Density target for natural long-term coverage in younger patients is 25–30 FU/cm²; high-density "dense packing" >30 FU/cm² is reserved for ideal donor/recipient profiles.⁴

Adjuncts matter: finasteride 1 mg is ~87% effective at slowing AGA progression; topical minoxidil reduces postoperative effluvium and is encouraged 5–12 weeks post-op.⁵,⁶

Cicatricial alopecia (post-facelift, burn, traction): keep recipient density conservative at 15–20 FU/cm² to avoid overwhelming a compromised blood supply.⁷

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #HairTransplantation #FUT #FUE #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #HairRestoration #Aesthetic #SurgicalPearls

References:

1. Unger W, Unger R, Wesley C. Estimating the number of lifetime follicular units: a survey and comments of experienced hair transplant surgeons. Dermatol Surg. 2012;1-6.

2. Pathomvanich D. Donor harvesting; a new approach to minimize transection of hair follicles. Dermatol Surg. 2000;26:345-348.

3. Limmer R. Micrograft survival. In: Stough D, Haber R, eds. Hair Replacement. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Press; 1996:147-149.

4. Shapiro R. Principles of creating a natural hairline. In: Unger W, Unger R, Unger M, Shapiro R, eds. Hair Transplantation. 5th ed. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2011:374-382.

5. Rossi A. Finasteride, 1 mg daily administration on male androgenetic alopecia and different age groups: 10-year follow up. Dermatol Ther. 2011;24(4):455-461.

6. Bohannon P. Topical minoxidil used before and after hair transplantation. J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1989;15:50-53.

7. Unger W, Unger R, Wesley C. The surgical treatment of cicatricial alopecia. Dermatol Ther. 2008;21(4):295-311.

Osseous genioplasty is the most versatile tool the plastic surgeon has for the lower face — and the most commonly mis-planned. In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we review the basics of chin surgery: when to pick the osteotomy over an implant, the five-pillar physical exam, the technical steps that decide your aesthetic result, and the pitfalls that cause the bizarre "overadvanced" chin we've all seen on revision.Key takeaways:• The lower lip rule: never advance the chin past a vertical line dropped from the lower lip. Cross it, and the result looks artificial every time.¹• 3-D versatility: implants only correct mild sagittal deficiency. Vertical excess, asymmetry, deep folds, or revisions belong to osseous genioplasty.²• Soft-tissue ratios: ~1:1 for advancement and lengthening; only ~0.5:1 for posterior repositioning.³• The 4 mm rule: keep the horizontal cut ≥ 4 mm below the mental foramina to protect the inferior alveolar nerve.⁴• Carry the cut posteriorly to the molars — the most common technical error is too short a cut, which produces an hourglass deformity.⁴• Mentalis discipline at closure prevents witch's chin (soft-tissue ptosis).⁵Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.🎧 Full episodes available now:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ#PlasticSurgery #Residency #Genioplasty #Craniofacial #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice #FacialAesthetics #ChinSurgeryReferences (AMA):1. Rosen HM. Aesthetic guidelines in genioplasty: the role of facial disproportion. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995;95(3):463-469.2. Converse JM, Wood-Smith D. Horizontal osteotomy of the mandible. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1964;34:464.3. Rosen HM. Aesthetic refinements in genioplasty: the role of the labiomental fold. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;88(5):760-767.4. Spear SL, Mausner ME, Kawamoto HK. Sliding genioplasty as a local aesthetic outpatient procedure: a prospective two center trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1987;80(1):55-59.5. Zide BM, McCarthy JG. The mentalis muscle: an associated component of chin and lower lip position. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1989;83(3):413-420.

Facial implants can dramatically change facial balance, but the difference between a natural result and an operated look comes down to planning, positioning, and fixation. In this episode, we break down the core principles of facial skeletal augmentation with implants for the plastic surgery resident.

We review the major implant materials, the anatomic targets across the midface and mandible, and the operative concepts that matter most in real cases. This includes why subperiosteal placement is preferred, why screw fixation remains a key technical principle, and how to think through chin augmentation versus sliding genioplasty. We also cover common causes of poor outcomes, including malposition, asymmetry, poor transition zones, and technique-related complications rather than material toxicity.

Key takeaways:

• Facial skeletal morphology is a major determinant of facial aesthetics
• Anthropometric normals are more useful than rigid neoclassical canons for planning

• Subperiosteal dissection improves visualization, precision, and safety during implant placement
• Screw fixation helps eliminate implant-bone gaps and reduces migration risk
• Infraorbital rim and paranasal implants can be powerful tools in midface deficiency

• Chin implants and sliding genioplasty each have distinct advantages and tradeoffs

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

References

1. Farkas LG, Hreczko TA, Kolar JC, Munro IR. Vertical and horizontal proportions of the face in young adult North American Caucasians: revision of neoclassical canons. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1985;75(3):328-338. doi:10.1097/00006534-198503000-00005. PMID: 3883374.
2. Rubin JP, Yaremchuk MJ. Complications and toxicities of implantable biomaterials used in facial reconstructive and aesthetic surgery: a comprehensive review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(5):1336-1353. doi:10.1097/00006534-199710000-00043. PMID: 9326803.
3. Yaremchuk MJ, Israeli D. Paranasal implants for correction of midface concavity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;102(5):1676-1684. doi:10.1097/00006534-199810000-00055. PMID: 9774030.
4. Yaremchuk MJ. Infraorbital rim augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;107(6):1585-1592. doi:10.1097/00006534-200105000-00047. PMID: 11335841.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.
#PlasticSurgery #PRS #FacialImplants #FacialSkeletalAugmentation #Craniofacial #Aesthetics #ResidentEducation #PlasticsInPractice

Prominent ears are not one deformity. They are usually a combination problem involving the antihelix, concha, and lobule. In this episode, we break down a practical, anatomy-first approach to otoplasty that helps you create a natural setback without a sharp, overdone, or obviously operated appearance.

We review the major causes of auricular prominence, the aesthetic goals of correction, and the core maneuvers every plastic surgery resident should know. The focus is on reliable, cartilage-sparing principles: Mustarde sutures for antihelical recreation, Furnas sutures and selective conchal reduction for conchal excess, and deliberate management of the lobule so you do not leave behind a hockey-stick deformity. We also cover timing, infant ear molding, postoperative care, and complications worth respecting.

Key Takeaways

• Prominent ears usually reflect a combination of underdeveloped antihelical fold, conchal excess, and lobule prominence.
• The goal is a soft, natural, harmonious setback with visible helical rim from the front and a straight helical contour from behind.
• Mustarde mattress sutures remain a foundational technique for recreating the antihelix.
• Furnas concha-mastoid sutures help address middle-third prominence by reducing the concha-mastoid angle.
• Lobule correction matters; ignoring it can leave a disharmonious result despite an otherwise good otoplasty.
• Early neonatal ear molding can permanently improve selected deformities without surgery.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

References

1. Thorne CH, Wilkes G. Ear deformities, otoplasty, and ear reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129(4):701e-716e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182450d9f. PMID: 22456385.
2. Mustardé JC. Correction of prominent ears using buried mattress sutures. Clin Plast Surg. 1978;5(3):459-464. PMID: 359224.
3. Furnas DW. Correction of prominent ears by conchamastoid sutures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1968;42(3):189-193. doi:10.1097/00006534-196809000-00001. PMID: 4878456.
4. Gosain AK, Recinos RF. A novel approach to correction of the prominent lobule during otoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(2):575-583. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000071000.80092.2A. PMID: 12900617.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #Otoplasty #ProminentEar #AuricularDeformity #PlasticSurgeryResident #ResidentEducation #PRS #FacialPlasticSurgery #PediatricPlasticSurgery #SurgicalPearls

Rhinoplasty is not a reductive operation anymore. Modern rhinoplasty is about precision, preservation, and structure. In this episode, we break down a practical framework for analyzing the rhinoplasty patient, protecting the airway, and executing reproducible tip and dorsal maneuvers with fewer long-term problems.

We cover the anatomy that actually matters in the OR: skin/soft tissue envelope behavior, the bony and cartilaginous vaults, the internal nasal valve, and the ligamentous support structures that determine projection, rotation, and long-term stability. We also walk through systematic nasofacial analysis, component dorsal hump reduction, algorithmic tip refinement, spreader graft logic, osteotomy planning, and why revision rhinoplasty remains so technically unforgiving.

Key Takeaways

• Modern rhinoplasty favors conservative, structure-sparing techniques over aggressive resection.
• Component dorsal hump reduction helps preserve dorsal aesthetic lines and reduce midvault complications.
• Tip work should follow an algorithmic progression: cephalic trim, sutures, strut support, then grafting as needed.
• The internal nasal valve is a major determinant of airflow and must be protected throughout dorsal and septal work.
• Strong outcomes depend on methodical preoperative analysis and matching technique to deformity.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

References

1. Ghavami A, Janis JE, Acikel C, Rohrich RJ. Tip shaping in primary rhinoplasty: an algorithmic approach. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;122(4):1229-1241. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31817d5f7d. PMID: 18827660.
2. Howard BK, Rohrich RJ. Understanding the nasal airway: principles and practice. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;109(3):1128-1146. doi:10.1097/00006534-200203000-00054. PMID: 11884847.
3. Rohrich RJ, Ahmad J. Rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(2):49e-73e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e31821e7191. PMID: 21788798.
4. Rohrich RJ, Muzaffar AR, Janis JE. Component dorsal hump reduction: the importance of maintaining dorsal aesthetic lines in rhinoplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(5):1298-1308. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000135861.45986.CF. PMID: 15457053.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #Rhinoplasty #NoseJob #PlasticSurgeryResident #PRS #FacialAesthetics #SurgicalEducation #Residency #MedicalEducation #ENT #AestheticSurgery

Master the principles behind modern facelifting.

This episode breaks down the core concepts of rhytidectomy, focusing on high-yield surgical principles, SMAS manipulation, and complication avoidance. We move beyond outdated skin-tension techniques and focus on what truly matters: volume restoration, anatomic precision, and hemodynamic control.

You’ll learn how to think about facelifts like a surgeon—not just perform steps. From SMAS strategies to neck management and hematoma prevention, this is a practical, resident-level deep dive.

• Volume > tension: Excess skin tension leads to distortion and poor aesthetics
• SMAS is everything: Extended SMAS provides superior midface + neck correction
• Hematoma = #1 complication: Strongly linked to perioperative hypertension
• Anatomy dictates safety: Stay superficial to the transparent fascia to protect CN VII
• Neck defines outcome: Platysma management is critical for cervicomental angle
• Less is more: Over-aggressive surgery → “operated” appearance

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

BibliographyThorne CH. Facelift. Grabb and Smith’s Plastic Surgery.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #Facelift #SMAS #SurgicalEducation #PRS #Residency #Aesthetics #MedEd

Blepharoplasty looks simple—but it’s one of the easiest ways to create devastating complications if you don’t respect the anatomy.

This episode breaks down the high-yield principles of modern blepharoplasty, focusing on what actually prevents bad outcomes: proper evaluation, conservative technique, and understanding lid support.

We cover upper and lower lid strategy, when to preserve vs remove fat, and how to avoid classic complications like ectropion, scleral show, and retrobulbar hematoma.

• Evaluation is everything: vector analysis, lid laxity, and Schirmer’s test predict complications
• Volume preservation > aggressive excision to avoid hollow “A-frame” deformity

• Lower lid support is critical: canthopexy/canthoplasty reduces malposition risk

• Orbitomalar ligament release + fat redraping improves lid–cheek junction

• Retrobulbar hematoma = emergency → immediate canthotomy/cantholysis

• Transconjunctival approach preferred in select patients to minimize complications

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

1. Codner MA, Burke RM. Blepharoplasty. In: Plastic Surgery Text.
2. Comprehensive Analysis of Modern Blepharoplasty.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #Blepharoplasty #Aesthetics #SurgicalPearls #PRS #Residency #Oculoplastics #FacialRejuvenation

The brow lift has evolved. What used to rely on long coronal incisions has shifted toward anatomically precise, minimally invasive endoscopic approaches designed to restore brow position while avoiding the over-elevated, unnatural “surprised” look.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we break down the modern principles of forehead and brow rejuvenation with a resident-focused review of upper facial aging, brow aesthetics, relevant anatomy, retaining ligaments, and operative strategy. We cover how the frontalis acts as the sole brow elevator, why the corrugator, procerus, orbicularis, and depressor supercilii matter clinically, and how selective ligament release with controlled fixation helps produce more natural results.

• The frontalis is the only true brow elevator; the corrugator, procerus, orbicularis oculi, and depressor supercilii act as brow depressors.
• Female brows generally favor lateral elevation and arch, whereas the male brow should remain flatter and closer to the superior orbital rim.
• Over-elevating the medial brow creates the classic “surprised look” and should usually be avoided.
• The lateral retinacular ligament must be adequately released for effective lateral brow elevation.
• Modern endoscopic techniques reduce morbidity associated with traditional coronal approaches, including alopecia and paresthesia.
• Unicortical bone tunnel fixation provides durable suspension in endoscopic brow rejuvenation.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

#PlasticSurgery #BrowLift #ForeheadRejuvenation #EndoscopicBrowLift #AestheticSurgery #PlasticSurgeryResidency #FacialAesthetics #SurgicalEducation

1. Phillips BZ, Hoy EA, Chang JT, Salomon JA, Sullivan PK. Forehead and brow rejuvenation. In: Thorne CH, ed. Grabb and Smith’s Plastic Surgery. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer; chapter 45.
2. Sullivan PK, Salomon JA, Woo AS, Freeman MB. The importance of the retaining ligamentous attachments of the forehead for selective eyebrow reshaping and forehead rejuvenation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(1):95-104. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000194904.27418.a0. PMID: 16404232.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Fat grafting is no longer just filler—it’s a cornerstone of modern plastic surgery. In this episode, we break down the principles that actually determine graft survival, contour outcomes, and safety across facial and mega-volume applications.

From the Coleman technique to BRAVA-assisted breast reconstruction, this is a high-yield, resident-focused deep dive into what matters in real cases.

• Fat graft “take” is ~40–60% → technique + vascularization are everything

• Small vs large volume = completely different strategies (micro-aliquots vs slurry + expansion)

• Best facial survival: deep, low-motion compartments (malar, cheek)

• Golden rule: V/C ratio ≤ 1:1 to avoid graft failure

• BRAVA pre-expansion ↓ interstitial pressure → ↑ volume capacity (up to ~700 cc)

• Biggest complications: overgrafting, contour irregularities, rare intravascular injection

We cover donor site selection (spoiler: doesn’t matter much), processing methods (centrifugation vs sedimentation), and injection strategies (micro-aliquots vs mapping vs reverse liposuction). We also break down why irradiated tissue fails, how to stage reconstruction, and where stem cell enrichment currently stands (not FDA approved).

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

References

1. Bucky LP, Percec I, Del Vecchio DA. Fat Grafting in Plastic Surgery.

2. Coleman SR. Structural fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006.

3. Coleman SR, Saboeiro AP. Fat grafting to the breast revisited. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007.

This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #FatGrafting #SurgicalPearls #PRS #Aesthetics #Residency

Botulinum toxin is simple—until you actually try to use it well. This episode breaks down what most people get wrong: it’s not about units, it’s about functional anatomy and precision.

We walk through the true mechanism (SNAP-25 cleavage → presynaptic blockade), why Botox affects nerves—not muscle or skin, and how that translates into real-world injection strategy. From glabella to platysma, this is a high-yield, resident-focused guide to getting consistent results while avoiding classic complications.

If you’re still thinking in “standard dosing,” you’re already behind.

• BoNTA works via SNAP-25 cleavage → blocks acetylcholine release → functional denervation

• Effects are dose-dependent weakening, not paralysis—precision matters

• Functional anatomy > fixed dosing (e.g., Mona Lisa vs canine smile patterns)

• Most complications = toxin diffusion to adjacent muscles

• High-risk zones: perioral (incompetence), neck (dysphagia), frontalis (ptosis)

• Used in 300+ conditions beyond aesthetics (hyperhidrosis, migraine, nerve injury)

1. Kane MA. Botulinum toxin. In: Grabb and Smith’s Plastic Surgery.

2. Scott AB, et al. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1973.

3. Carruthers JD, Carruthers JA. Dermatol Surg. 1992.

4. Kane MA. Plast Reconstr Surg.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

#PlasticSurgery #Botox #Neurotoxins #Aesthetics #Residency #MedEd #FacialAnatomy #Injectables #CosmeticMedicine

Dermal fillers are more than just wrinkle tools. In this episode, we break down the science that actually drives filler performance: rheology, particle behavior, tissue planes, facial fat compartments, and complication management.

This is a high-yield review of dermal and soft-tissue fillers for plastic surgery residents, fellows, and aesthetic surgeons. We cover how G′ (elastic modulus) and viscosity influence lift, spread, and extrusion; why cross-linking matters more than concentration alone for HA longevity; how facial aging reflects compartmentalized volume loss rather than uniform descent; and how these concepts translate into agent selection, injection plane, and technique. We also review the practical differences among HA, CaHA, PLLA, PMMA, collagen-based fillers, and fat, plus the major pearls in avoiding and managing vascular compromise, nodules, granulomas, and biofilm-related complications. This episode is grounded in the uploaded study guide and chapter source material.

Key Takeaways

• High G′ fillers provide more structural support and lift; lower G′ fillers suit more superficial, mobile areas.

• Cross-linking is a major determinant of HA durability and in vivo stability.

• Facial aging is compartmentalized, so strategic revolumization can create indirect correction of adjacent deformities.

• Injection pattern, plane, needle/cannula choice, and dilution should match the filler’s rheology and target anatomy.

• Complication readiness matters: vascular compromise requires early recognition and aggressive management, especially with HA products.

References
[1] Kablik J, Monheit GD, Yu L, Chang G, Gershkovich J. Comparative physical properties of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers. Dermatol Surg. 2009;35 Suppl 1:302-312. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2008.01046.x. PMID: 19207319.
[2] Sundaram H, Voigts B, Beer K, Meland M. Comparison of the rheological properties of viscosity and elasticity in two categories of soft tissue fillers: calcium hydroxylapatite and hyaluronic acid. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36 Suppl 3:1859-1865. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4725.2010.01743.x. PMID: 20969663.
[3] Rohrich RJ, Pessa JE. The fat compartments of the face: anatomy and clinical implications for cosmetic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(7):2219-2227. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000265403.66886.54. PMID: 17519724.
[4] Lemperle G, Rullan PP, Gauthier-Hazan N. Avoiding and treating dermal filler complications. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(3 Suppl):92S-107S. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000234672.69287.77. PMID: 16936549.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

#PlasticSurgery #DermalFillers #FacialRejuvenation #Aesthetics #PlasticSurgeryResidency #HyaluronicAcid #Sculptra #Radiesse #AestheticMedicine #MedicalEducation

Skin resurfacing is one of those topics that looks simple on the surface but gets very nuanced once you start thinking about depth, target tissue, endpoint recognition, and complication profile. In this episode, we break down the science of skin resurfacing in a way that actually matters for plastic surgery trainees.

We cover the core anatomy behind resurfacing, why the dermal-epidermal junction matters, and how different modalities—chemical peels, dermabrasion, CO2 laser, Erbium:YAG, and fractional photothermolysis—produce different patterns of injury and healing. The real clinical question is not just what device or agent you use, but how deep you go, what problem you are treating, and what tradeoffs you accept. Wrinkle correction generally requires treatment through the DE junction into at least the papillary dermis, while deeper injury also increases the risk of scarring and permanent pigmentary change.

• Epidermal treatments target dyschromias, keratoses, and superficial actinic change.

• Wrinkle correction usually requires penetration through the DE junction into the papillary dermis.

• TCA, phenol/croton oil, dermabrasion, CO2, and Erbium:YAG all differ in mechanism, endpoint, and recovery.

• Fractionated resurfacing improves healing time by sparing intervening tissue, but may not match full-field CO2 for deep wrinkle effacement.

• Major complications include HSV reactivation, bacterial/fungal infection, hyperpigmentation, and permanent hypopigmentation.

1. Barton FE. Skin resurfacing. In: Grabb and Smith’s Plastic Surgery. Chapter 41.

2. Study Guide – Analysis of Skin Resurfacing Techniques and Clinical Applications. Uploaded source document.

3. Manstein D, Herron GS, Sink RK, Tanner H, Anderson RR. Fractional photothermolysis: a new concept for cutaneous remodeling using microscopic patterns of thermal injury. Lasers Surg Med. 2004;34:426.

4. Hetter GP. An examination of the phenol-croton oil peel: Part I. Dissecting the formula. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2000;105:227.

5. Fitzpatrick RE, Rostan EF, Marchell N. Collagen tightening induced by carbon dioxide laser versus erbium:YAG laser. Lasers Surg Med. 2000;27:395.

6. Karimipour DJ, Karimipour G, Orringer JS. Microdermabrasion: an evidence-based review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125:372.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

#PlasticSurgery #SkinResurfacing #ChemicalPeel #LaserResurfacing #Dermabrasion #CO2Laser #ErbiumYAG #Aesthetics #MedEd #PlasticSurgeryResidency

Congenital breast anomalies are more than aesthetic diagnoses—they carry major psychosocial weight and demand a thoughtful reconstructive plan. In this episode, we break down the high-yield clinical framework for evaluating and surgically correcting congenital breast deformities, with a focus on tuberous breast deformity, developmental asymmetry, and Poland syndrome.

This is the resident-level overview you actually want before clinic, consults, or conference: embryology, Tanner staging, classification systems, timing of intervention, and the operative principles that drive reconstruction. We cover why “improvement, not perfection” is the right counseling framework, why bilateral procedures are often necessary for symmetry, and how modern reconstruction increasingly incorporates fat grafting alongside implants, expanders, and autologous tissue transfer.

Key Takeaways

• Breast development begins in utero and matures through Tanner staging, with most definitive reconstruction delayed until breast maturity around ages 16–18.

• Tuberous breast deformity is defined by base constriction, lower-pole deficiency, high/tight IMF, parenchymal hypoplasia, and possible areolar herniation.

• Grolleau classification remains the practical system for tuberous breast deformity planning.

• Poland syndrome classically involves absence of the sternocostal head of pectoralis major with variable breast, chest wall, and upper-extremity anomalies.

• Reconstruction is individualized: implants, tissue expansion, latissimus flap, free tissue transfer, and adjunctive fat grafting all have a role depending on severity.

• The surgical goal is balanced form and symmetry—not perfection.

References

1. Latham K, Fernandez S, Iteld L, Panthaki Z, Armstrong MB, Thaller S. Pediatric breast deformity. J Craniofac Surg. 2006;17(3):454-467. doi:10.1097/00001665-200605000-00012. PMID: 16770181.

2. Marshall WA, Tanner JM. Variations in pattern of pubertal changes in girls. Arch Dis Child. 1969;44(235):291-303. doi:10.1136/adc.44.235.291. PMID: 5785179.

3. Grolleau JL, Lanfrey E, Lavigne B, Chavoin JP, Costagliola M. Breast base anomalies: treatment strategy for tuberous breasts, minor deformities, and asymmetry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104(7):2040-2048. doi:10.1097/00006534-199912000-00014. PMID: 11149766.

4. Coleman SR, Saboeiro AP. Fat grafting to the breast revisited: safety and efficacy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119(3):775-785. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000252001.59162.c9. PMID: 17312477.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   
#PlasticSurgery #PRS #BreastReconstruction #TuberousBreast #PolandSyndrome #BreastAsymmetry #PlasticSurgeryResident #SurgicalEducation #MedEd #PlasticsInPractice

Nipple reconstruction is not the “small final step” of breast reconstruction—it is the focal point. A great breast mound can be undermined by poor nipple position, poor projection, or a mismatch in size and symmetry. In this episode, we break down the high-yield principles that actually matter when planning and performing nipple-areola complex reconstruction.

We cover how to mark the nipple thoughtfully rather than relying on rigid measurements alone, why patient input matters more than many residents realize, and how technique selection changes depending on whether the breast mound is autologous or implant-based. We also review local flap options, contralateral composite grafting, cartilage and acellular dermal matrix strategies, and the role of tattooing as both an adjunct and a stand-alone option. Most importantly, we discuss the unavoidable issue of projection loss and why initial overcorrection is often the smarter move. Built from the uploaded chapter and study guide on nipple reconstruction.

Key Takeaways

• Nipple position is the most unforgiving variable in NAC reconstruction and often matters more than the flap design itself.

• Local flaps remain the workhorse, especially in autologous reconstruction with adequate soft tissue.

• Expect projection loss over time; deliberate overcorrection is usually necessary.

• Prosthetic reconstruction often requires alternative strategies such as grafts, cartilage, ADM, or tattoo-only reconstruction.

• Tattooing is not just cosmetic finishing—it significantly affects final patient satisfaction.

References

1. Fuentes PM, Langstein HN. A review of nipple-areola complex reconstruction and tattooing in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2026;15(1):29-43. PMID: 41668920.

2. Paolini G, Amoroso M, Pugliese P, et al. Guiding Nipple-Areola Complex Reconstruction: Literature Review and Proposal of a New Decision-Making Algorithm. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2021;45(3):933-945. doi:10.1007/s00266-020-02047-9. PMID: 33216178.

3. Sisti A, Grimaldi L, Tassinari J, et al. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction techniques: A literature review. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42(4):441-465. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2016.01.003. PMID: 26868167.

4. Smallman A, Smith M, Ramakrishnan V. Does nipple-areolar tattooing matter in breast reconstruction? A cohort study using the BREAST-Q. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018. PMC7061635.

5. Levy J, Bell DE, Winocour S, et al. Long-term nipple projection retention following local flap nipple reconstruction using 3D imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2025. PMID: 40677291.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

#PlasticSurgery #BreastReconstruction #NippleReconstruction #NACReconstruction #PRS #PlasticSurgeryResident #BreastSurgery #ReconstructiveSurgery #SurgicalEducation #PlasticsInPractice

Free flap breast reconstruction is one of the most technically demanding and rewarding procedures in reconstructive microsurgery. In this episode, we break down flap selection, donor-site strategy, recipient vessel choice, perfusion monitoring, and the key complications every plastic surgery resident needs to know.

We focus on why the abdomen remains the preferred donor site for most patients, how DIEP, free TRAM, and SIEA differ in muscle preservation and vascular reliability, and when to move to secondary donor sites like SGAP, IGAP, or TUG/TMG. We also review why the internal mammary system is usually the recipient vessel of choice, how CTA/MRA improves preoperative planning, and how NIR spectroscopy and indocyanine green angiography can improve early detection of vascular compromise. Success in these cases is not just about anastomosis—it is about planning, judgment, and flap-specific decision making.

Key Takeaways

• DIEP offers strong abdominal wall preservation but requires meticulous perforator dissection.

• Free TRAM may improve perfusion while sacrificing more muscle than DIEP.

• SIEA avoids fascia violation but is anatomically feasible in only a minority of patients.

• Internal mammary vessels typically provide superior flow and positioning flexibility versus thoracodorsal vessels.

• CTA/MRA helps identify dominant perforators and streamline operative planning.

• Postop monitoring is critical, since early detection drives flap salvage.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #BreastReconstruction #FreeFlap #DIEPFlap #TRAMFlap #Microsurgery #ReconstructiveSurgery #PlasticSurgeryResident #SurgicalEducation #AutologousReconstruction

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ   

References

1. Nahabedian MY. Breast reconstruction: free flap techniques. In: Grabb and Smith’s Plastic Surgery. Chapter 62.

2. Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Galdino G, Manson PN. Breast reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. PMID/DOI not verified from provided materials.

3. Keller A. Near-infrared spectroscopy for free flap monitoring. PMID/DOI not verified from provided materials.

4. Colwell AS, et al. Near-infrared spectroscopy in free flap breast reconstruction. PMID/DOI not verified from provided materials.

Pedicled or free TRAM? This is one of the classic decision points in autologous breast reconstruction, and it still matters. In this episode, we break down the practical tradeoffs between pedicled TRAM, free TRAM, and DIEP-based thinking: flap perfusion, donor-site morbidity, operative complexity, and patient selection.

For residents, this is the real question: when should you preserve muscle, when should you prioritize perfusion, and when is the “simpler” flap actually the smarter flap? We walk through the muscle-sparing classification, high-risk patient considerations, recipient vessel choices, and the aesthetic plus functional consequences that actually drive decision-making in the OR.

Key Takeaways

• Pedicled TRAM prioritizes reliability, speed, and technical simplicity.

• Free TRAM offers improved perfusion and is often better for obese or heavy-smoking patients.

• DIEP minimizes muscle sacrifice, but fewer perforators can increase flap-related risk in selected cases.

• Larger flaps or smaller perforators may push decision-making toward muscle-sparing free TRAM rather than DIEP.

• Donor-site morbidity tracks closely with muscle and fascia sacrifice, but muscle preservation is not the only variable that matters.

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #BreastReconstruction #TRAMFlap #DIEPFlap #Microsurgery #PRS #PlasticSurgeryResident #AutologousBreastReconstruction

References

1. Nahabedian MY, Momen B, Galdino G, Manson PN. Breast reconstruction with the free TRAM or DIEP flap: patient selection, choice of flap, and outcome. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002;110(2):466-475.

2. Allen RJ, Treece P. Deep inferior epigastric perforator flap for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 1994;32:32.

3. Hartrampf CR, Scheflan M, Black P. Breast reconstruction with a transverse abdominal island flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1982;96:216.

4. Man LX, Selber JC, Serletti JM. Abdominal wall following free TRAM or DIEP flap reconstruction: a meta-analysis and critical review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(3):752-764.

5. Selber JC, Nelson J, Fosnot J, et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: part I. Unilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(4):1142-1153.

6. Selber JC, Fosnot J, Nelson J, et al. A prospective study comparing the functional impact of SIEA, DIEP, and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps on the abdominal wall: part II bilateral reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(5):1438-1453.

This long-form episode is a high-yield, start-to-finish in-service review.

We cover the main topics: core principles → wounds/flaps/grafts → burns/skin cancer → CMF trauma + vision threats → hand infections/tendon zones → breast/implants + complications → trunk/LE coverage logic → last-minute algorithms.

#PlasticSurgery #PSITE #InService #PlasticsInPractice #SurgeryResident #BoardPrep #Microsurgery #HandSurgery #Craniofacial

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

References:

1. Blumetti J, Hunt JL, Arnoldo BD, et al. The Parkland formula under fire: is the criticism justified? J Burn Care Res. 2008;29(1):180-186. PMID: 18182919. doi:10.1097/BCR.0b013e31815f3876.

2. Clemens MW, Jacobsen ED, Horwitz SM. 2019 NCCN Consensus Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Implant-Associated ALCL. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(Suppl_1):S3-S13. PMID: 30715173. doi:10.1093/asj/sjy331.

3. Hopkins PM, Rüffert H, Snoeck MMJ, et al. Malignant hyperthermia 2020: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists. Anaesthesia. 2021;76(5):655-664. PMID: 33399225. doi:10.1111/anae.15317.

4. Joyce KM, Joyce CW, Jones DP, et al. Surgical Management of Melanoma. In: StatPearls [Internet]. 2017–. PMID: (see NCBI entry).

5. Kennedy CD, Huang JI, Hanel DP. In Brief: Kanavel’s Signs and Pyogenic Flexor Tenosynovitis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(1):280-284. PMID: 26022113. doi:10.1007/s11999-015-4367-x.

6. Safety Committee of Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists. Practical guide for management of systemic toxicity caused by local anesthetics. J Anesth. 2019;33(1):1-8. PMID: 30417244. doi:10.1007/s00540-018-2542-4.

Autologous reliability with prosthetic precision—the latissimus dorsi flap (LDF) is back for a reason. In this episode we break down how to optimize LD flap breast reconstruction using “volume-added” harvest and smart expander/implant strategy.
We cover the operative setup from markings and skin paddle design to subfascial dissection to capture deep fat, high axillary tunneling, and inset strategies that improve contour while protecting the pedicle. We also clarify when to use expander as an intelligent spacer vs. immediate implant—and how Stage 2 refinement (4–6 months) improves final implant selection and symmetry.

Key Takeaways:

• Markings: center the skin island on the muscle; align to relaxed skin tension lines to reduce ugly scars.

• Volume-added harvest: stay just under thoracic fascia to bring deep fat for better mastectomy-edge camouflage.

• Preserve lateral contour: respect the upper anterior “zone of adherence;” tunnel high in the axilla.

• Protect perfusion: keep serratus branch intact—critical collateral if thoracodorsal is compromised.

• Seroma is the enemy: quilting/progressive tension sutures + drains can reduce chronic drainage.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #BreastReconstruction #LatissimusDorsiFlap #Microsurgery #PRS #Residency

Links:🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

References :

1. Hammond DC, Loffredo MA. Latissimus Dorsi Flap Breast Reconstruction. In: [Chapter 60].

2. Rios J, Adams WP, Pollock T. Progressive tension sutures to decrease latissimus donor site seroma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112:1779.

Prosthetic breast reconstruction looks “simple” until you chase symmetry, fight the inframammary fold, and add radiation into the mix. This episode is a practical walkthrough of the two-stage expander–implant pathway—what actually matters, what fails, and how to plan it cleanly.

Episode overview
We cover patient selection, immediate vs delayed timing, modern biodimensional expanders, the expansion protocol, and the exchange operation with an emphasis on IMF positioning, inferior pole projection/ptosis, and strategies to optimize symmetry. We also break down ADM use (what it helps, what it costs), and why radiation changes complication risk and revision rates.

Key takeaways:

• Ideal implant candidates: thin, bilateral, or thin unilateral with a nonptotic contralateral breast.

• Expansion pearls: start ~10–14 days, fill 30–120 mL per visit; overexpand ~25–30% to build skin for ptosis/projection.

• ADM: enables larger initial fills and pocket control, but can increase seroma and infection-related failure.

• Exchange: measure base width/height/projection; IMF definition is the highest-leverage step.

• Radiation: higher capsular contracture/complication rates—plan sequencing and counsel hard.

Links
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO
📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-prac
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/
#PlasticSurgery #BreastReconstruction #Microsurgery #SurgicalEducation #Residency #TissueExpander #ImplantReconstruction #ADM #Oncoplastic #PRS

References:

1. Antony AK, McCarthy CM, Cordeiro PG, et al. Acellular human dermis implantation in 153 immediate two-stage tissue expander breast reconstructions. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(6):1606-1614. PMID: 20517083.

2. Chen CM, Disa JJ, Sacchini V, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(6):1772-1780. PMID: 19952633.

3. Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, et al. Irradiation after immediate tissue expander/implant breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;113(3):877-881. PMID: 15108879.

4. Preminger BA, McCarthy CM, Hu QY, Mehrara BJ, Disa JJ. Influence of AlloDerm on expander dynamics/complications in immediate TE/I reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60(5):510-513. PMID: 18434824.

   
   

   
   

   Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Breast cancer management isn’t “mastectomy vs lumpectomy.” It’s risk → imaging → tissue diagnosis → staging → locoregional control → systemic therapy, all tailored to tumor biology and patient goals.

In this episode, we walk through the modern evidence base that moved us from Halsted-era radical surgery to breast-conserving therapy + targeted systemic therapy, while keeping oncologic safety front and center.

Key takeaways:

• Screening: Average risk = annual mammography starting at 40; high-risk patients may add MRI starting ~30.

• Pathology framework: DCIS (basement membrane) vs LCIS (risk marker) vs invasive (ductal most common; lobular often occult on mammo).

• Breast conservation: Lumpectomy with negative margins + RT achieves survival comparable to mastectomy; RT dramatically improves local control.

• Axilla: SLNB is standard staging in early disease with lower morbidity; many patients avoid completion ALND depending on criteria + adjuvant RT.

• Systemic therapy: Endocrine therapy and targeted agents reduce recurrence risk—selection is tumor-marker driven.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#BreastCancer #BreastSurgery #PlasticSurgery #GeneralSurgery #Oncoplastic #SurgicalOncology #Residency #SLNB #DCIS #Mastectomy

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO
📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-prac
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/

Citations (AMA):

1. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57(2):75-89. doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.2.75. PMID:17392385.

2. Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, et al. N Engl J Med. 1989;320(13):822-828. PMID:2927449.

3. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, et al. Lancet. 2005;366(9503):2087-2106. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67887-7. PMID:16360786.

4. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, et al. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569-575. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.90. PMID:21304082.

5. Fisher B, Costantino J, Redmond C, et al. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(22):1581-1586. doi:10.1056/NEJM199306033282201. PMID:8292119.

6. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Lancet. 1999;353(9169):1993-2000. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(99)05036-9. PMID:10376613.

Gynecomastia isn’t “just fat.” It’s a spectrum—ductal tissue, stroma, and fat—driven by hormonal shifts across life stages. In this episode, we walk through a clean clinical framework: etiology → pathology timeline → exam/workup → severity grading → surgical plan, with pearls that prevent the most common aesthetic failures.

We cover when you can stop the workup, how to interpret florid vs fibrous disease by duration, and how Simon grading dictates whether you’re doing lipo, excision, pull-through, or formal skin resection. Then we get practical: incision placement, contour strategy, compression, drains, and how to avoid the nightmare complications—hematoma, under-resection, and the classic subareolar “saucer” deformity.

Key takeaways

• Gynecomastia peaks in neonatal, adolescent, and >65 age groups—think T:E ratio shift.

• Pathology tracks duration: florid <4 mo, intermediate 4–12 mo, fibrous >1 yr.

• Simon grade guides skin management—2b often deserves time + compression before skin excision.

• Preserve a 1–1.5 cm subareolar cuff to prevent NAC adherence/depression.

• If lipo leaves a residual “bud,” add pull-through (don’t accept under-resection).

Citations (AMA)

1. Rohrich RJ, Ha RY, Kenkel JM, Adams Wand management of gynecomastia: defining the role of ultrasound-assisted liposuction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;111(2):909-923. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000042146.40379.25. PMID:12560721.

2. Hammond DC. Surgical correction of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124(1 Suppl):61e-68e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aa2dc7. PMID:19568140.

3. Simon BE, Hoffman S, Kahn S. Classification and surgical correction of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1973;51(1):48-52. doi:10.1097/00006534-197301000-00009. PMID:4687568.

4. Hammond DC, Arnold JF, Simon AM, Capraro PA. Combined use of ultrasonic liposuction with the pull-through technique for the treatment of gynecomastia. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(3):891-895. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000072254.75067.F7. PMID:12960873.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #Gynecomastia #PRS #SurgeryEducation #Residency #AestheticSurgery #Liposuction

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Vertical reduction mammaplasty represents a fundamental shift in breast reduction philosophy. Instead of relying on skin tension to maintain shape, the vertical approach prioritizes internal parenchymal architecture to create durable projection, narrower bases, and reduced scarring.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we break down the core principles of Hall-Findlay’s vertical reduction mammaplasty, focusing on how breast shape is determined by tension-free pillar closure—not a “skin brassiere.” We review anatomical foundations, marking strategies, pedicle selection, and operative techniques that consistently produce superior aesthetic outcomes.

Key topics include:

• Why nipple position should be based on the upper breast border, not the suprasternal notch

• The rationale behind the “snowman” skin resection

• Medial vs superomedial pedicles and their impact on vascular reliability and sensation

• Management of postoperative puckering and expectations for skin adaptation

• Common pitfalls, including under-resection and premature revision

This episode is designed for plastic surgery residents and early attendings looking to understand why the vertical technique works—not just how to perform it.

• Final breast shape comes from parenchymal pillars, not skin tension

• Vertical techniques improve projection and base width compared to inverted-T

• Medial pedicles demonstrate the highest sensation recovery (~85%)

• Inferior puckering is expected and usually resolves without intervention

• Predetermined resection weights help avoid under-reduction

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #BreastReduction #VerticalMammaplasty #PRS #Residency #HallFindlay #SurgicalEducation

1. Hall-Findlay EJ. Vertical breast reduction. Plast Reconstr Surg. PMID: 12711950.

2. Hall-Findlay EJ. Pedicles in vertical breast reduction. Clin Plast Surg. PMID: 15576215.

Macromastia reduction is where reconstructive principles collide with aesthetic outcomes—and the inverted-T (Wise) pattern stays dominant because it’s predictable. In this episode, we walk through the anatomic “non-negotiables” for NAC perfusion + sensation, then translate that into practical pedicle selection (inferior, superomedial, central mound, and vertical bipedicle) for the real cases: large breasts, ptosis, and gigantomastia.

What you’ll learn:

• Triple-source vascular logic (medial perforators/internal mammary, lateral thoracic, intercostals) and why collateralization matters in big moves. 1

• NAC sensation: protecting the lateral cutaneous branch of the 4th intercostal nerve and how pedicle choice influences risk. 1

• When inverted-T is the safer “teaching pattern” (large volume + skin excess) vs when vertical strategies make sense. 1,2

• Inferior vs superomedial: complication profiles and what changes in large-volume reductions. 3

• Free nipple grafting: true indications, functional tradeoffs, and evolving alternatives (extended/elongated pedicles). 4,5

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #Residency #BreastReduction #ReductionMammaplasty #WisePattern #InvertedT #NippleAreolaComplex #AestheticSurgery

Citations (AMA) — in text shown as #
References (numbered):

1. Study Guide – Breast Reduction: The Inverted-T Technique and Pedicle Variations.

2. Serra MP, et al. Breast reduction with a superomedial pedicle and a vertical scar… PMID: 20179472.

3. Ogunleye AA, et al. Complications After Reduction Mammaplasty… PMID: 28328638.

4. Talwar AA, et al. Outcomes of Extended Pedicle Technique vs Free Nipple Graft… PMID: 36161307.

5. Bonomi F, et al. Is free nipple grafting necessary… PMID: 38183875.

Ptosis + volume loss is the classic “deflated upper pole in a stretched envelope” problem—and mastopexy-augmentation is where planning mistakes become revisions. This episode breaks down how to choose the right mastopexy pattern, when augmentation alone is enough, and the technical pitfalls that drive complications (especially scarring, malposition, and ischemic risk).

We’ll walk through ptosis classification (Regnault), a nipple elevation + desired volume algorithm, and the practical tradeoffs between circumareolar, vertical (circumvertical), and Wise-pattern approaches. You’ll also get a clean framework for deciding one-stage vs staged augmentation-mastopexy, plus what to watch for in secondary cases (prior pedicles, thinning tissues, capsular work, “snoopy” and “ball-in-sock” deformities).

Key takeaways (resident-focused):

• Match technique to required nipple elevation and volume goal—not scar preference.

• Minimize undermining to protect NAC + skin flap perfusion.

• Conservative skin markings in aug-mastopexy: implants change nipple-to-fold geometry.

• One-stage is reasonable in good candidates; high-risk patients should usually stage.

• Revision drivers are often scar-related, not the “pattern” itself.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

#PlasticSurgery #Mastopexy #BreastAugmentation #AestheticSurgery #PRS #Residency

Citations (AMA):

1. Regnault P. Breast ptosis. Definition and treatment. Clin Plast Surg. 1976;3(2):193-203.

2. Rohrich RJ, Thornton JF, Jakubietz RG, Jakubietz MG, Grunert JG. The limited scar mastopexy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2004;114(6):1622-1630.

3. Spear SL, Dayan JH, Clemens MW. Augmentation mastopexy. Clin Plast Surg. 2009;36(1):105-115.

4. Stevens WG, Freeman ME, Stoker DA, Quardt SM, Cohen R, Hirsch EM. One-stage mastopexy with augmentation: 321 patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(6):1674-1679.

5. Stevens WG, Stoker DA, Freeman ME, Quardt SM, Hirsch EM. Mastopexy revisited: 150 cases. Aesthet Surg J. 2007;27(2):150-154.

   
   

   🎧 Full episodes available now:

   Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

   Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

   Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

   YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

   Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

   📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Breast augmentation is one of the most performed aesthetic operations—and still one of the most revised. This episode is a practical, surgeon-to-surgeon breakdown of how to drive reoperations down by treating planning as the operation.

We walk through a tissue-based philosophy: objective measurements (not cup-size promises), pocket selection that matches coverage needs, and operative decisions that prevent predictable failures like malposition, rippling, and capsular contracture.

Key takeaways (resident-focused):

• Reoperation rate is the scoreboard—plan backwards from the revision causes.

• Use objective sizing frameworks (e.g., High Five™ / TEPID) to reduce size-exchange revisions.

• Dual-plane logic: coverage where you need it, expansion where you want it—without iatrogenic damage.

• Rippling prevention is coverage math (pinch thickness rules matter).

• Capsular contracture: think contamination + biofilm risk; incision choice and technique aren’t “small details.”

• BIA-ALCL: know the textured implant association and the classic delayed seroma presentation.

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Hashtags: #PlasticSurgery #BreastAugmentation #AestheticSurgery #PlasticsResidency #CapsularContracture #DualPlane #BIAALCL

Citations (AMA; numbered; alphabetical bibliography):

1. Tebbetts JB, Adams WP Jr. Five critical decisions in breast augmentation using five measurements in 5 minutes: the High Five decision support process. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;116(7):2005-2016. PMID: 16327616.

2. Tebbetts JB. A system for breast implant selection based on patient tissue characteristics and implant-soft tissue dynamics. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002. PMID: 11964998.

3. Pajkos A, et al. Detection of subclinical infection in significant breast implant capsules. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003. PMID: 12655204.

4. Li S, et al. Capsular contracture rate after breast augmentation with periareolar versus other incisions: a meta-analysis. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2018. PMID: 28916908.

5. Sharma B, et al. Breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Lancet Oncol. 2020. PMID: 32302264.

   
   

   6. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. FDA requests Allergan recall of BIOCELL textured breast implants (2019).

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we break down one of the most enduring debates in reconstructive microsurgery: Muscle vs. Fasciocutaneous (FC) flaps for lower limb trauma. For decades, residents were taught that muscle was mandatory for open fractures and osteomyelitis due to its superior vascularity and dead-space obliteration. But does the modern evidence support this?

We analyze landmark papers including the massive retrospective review by Yazar et al. and the controlled osteomyelitis study by Salgado et al., which suggest clinical equivalence between the two tissue types. We also dive into the biological nuances reviewed by Chan et al., highlighting why muscle might still hold the edge in specific scenarios—and how chimeric flaps offer a "best of both worlds" solution.

Key Takeaways for Residents:

• Debridement is King: The single most critical factor for success is not the tissue type, but the adequacy of the debridement.

• Clinical Equivalence: For distal third and ankle defects, FC flaps show statistically equivalent rates of flap survival, infection, and union compared to muscle flaps.

• The Practical Edge: FC flaps offer superior aesthetics, less donor morbidity, and are easier to re-elevate for secondary orthopedic procedures (hardware removal/bone grafting).

• Biological Nuance: Muscle tissue retains biological superiority (osteogenic potential and antimicrobial properties) for deep, complex, 3D dead spaces.

• The Chimeric Solution: Consider chimeric flaps (e.g., ALT + Vastus Lateralis) to combine biological dead-space filling with cutaneous coverage.

Citations:

1. Yazar S, Lin CH, Lin YT, et al. Outcome comparison between free muscle and free fasciocutaneous flaps for reconstruction of distal third and ankle open tibial fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):2468-2475. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000224304.56885.c2

2. Salgado CJ, Mardini S, Jamali AA, et al. Muscle versus nonmuscle flaps in the reconstruction of chronic osteomyelitis defects. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(6):1401-1411. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000239579.37760.92

3. Chan JK, Harry L, Williams G, Nanchahal J. Soft-tissue reconstruction of open fractures of the lower limb: muscle versus fasciocutaneous flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130(2):284e-295e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182589e63

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Disclaimer: This content is for educational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Foot and ankle reconstruction is a battlefield of function and form. Every subunit has its own demands — the dorsum needs thin, pliable coverage; the heel demands durable, glabrous-like skin. In this landmark PRS 2010 paper, Hollenbeck et al. applied the subunit principle to 165 free flaps, giving surgeons a blueprint for tailored, long-term reconstruction success.

Summary:This episode breaks down the seven distinct subunits of the foot and ankle, each with unique reconstructive goals. We discuss the data behind flap outcomes, limb salvage (89% at 5 years), and complication rates, including the common pitfalls like flap debulking and late ulceration — especially in the heel subunit.
We’ll explore how subunit-based flap planning improves durability, shoe-fit, and overall limb function — plus, how specific flaps like the radial forearm, ALT, and latissimus dorsi perform across zones.

Key Takeaways:

• 7 subunits = 7 reconstructive goals.

• Heel (Subunit 5) = highest instability risk.

• Mean ambulation: 3.1 months.

• Limb salvage: 89% at 5 years.

• Subunit mapping improves both form and function.

  
  

Citation:

Hollenbeck ST, Woo S, Komatsu I, et al. Longitudinal Outcomes and Application of the Subunit Principle to 165 Foot and Ankle Free Tissue Transfers. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(3):924–934. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181cc9630

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Orbital floor fractures are among the most common midfacial injuries—and understanding when and how to operate is key for every resident. In this episode, we break down the anatomy, evaluation, and evidence-based management of orbital blowout fractures, based on Gart & Gosain’s Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2014 review.

We cover:

• Mechanisms — buckling vs. hydraulic theory, and why both matter.

• Clinical findings — diplopia, enophthalmos, oculocardiac reflex.

• Timing of repair — urgent (<48 hrs) indications vs. delayed (within 2 weeks).

• Surgical approaches — transconjunctival vs. subtarsal vs. subciliary.

• Implant materials — bone grafts, porous polyethylene, titanium mesh, and resorbables.

• Pediatric nuances — trapdoor fractures, oculocardiac reflex, and growth considerations.

🔑 Key Takeaways:

1. Early repair (<48 hrs) improves outcomes in entrapment and oculocardiac reflex.

2. Enophthalmos >2 mm or >50% floor involvement = strong indication for repair.

3. Transconjunctival approach offers lowest visible scarring; avoid subciliary ectropion.

4. In children, consider resorbable materials to avoid growth restriction.

📚 Reference:
Gart MS, Gosain AK. Orbital Floor Fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(6):1345–1355. DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000719

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Mandible fractures are the most common indication for surgical repair of facial fractures, and their management continues to evolve with modern plating systems and imaging.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we break down the key anatomy, causes, diagnostic pearls, and surgical strategies you need to know for the boards and the operating room.

We start with the anatomy of the mandible — from condyle to symphysis — and review the opposing muscle forces that make fracture management so challenging . Then we dive into epidemiology: in the U.S., interpersonal violence dominates, while motor vehicle collisions are more common worldwide .

From there, we walk through preoperative evaluation and imaging, emphasizing the role of CT over panoramic radiographs for detecting posterior fractures. We also cover timing of repair, antibiotic prophylaxis, and surgical principles: restoring occlusion, rigid vs. functional fixation, and key approaches to angle, symphysis, bilateral, condylar, comminuted, and edentulous fractures.

• Mandible fractures occur most often in men 25–34, usually from assaults or MVCs.

• CT is the gold standard for imaging.

• Early repair is ideal, but delays >72h don’t significantly raise infection risk.

• Antibiotics are recommended, but evidence for type/duration remains weak.

• Surgical principle: restore occlusion + stable fixation, tailored to fracture site.

  
  

📚 References:Morrow BT, Samson TD, Schubert W, Mackay DR. Evidence-Based Medicine: Mandible Fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(6):1381–1390. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000717

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Frontal sinus fractures are among the most challenging maxillofacial injuries — rare but high-stakes, with potential for meningitis, brain abscess, and lifelong sinus complications if mismanaged. In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we break down the stepwise algorithm for diagnosis and management of frontal sinus trauma.

We’ll walk through the embryology and anatomy that make these fractures unique, the critical role of the frontonasal duct, and how to decide between preservation, obliteration, or cranialization. You’ll learn the management principles for anterior vs posterior wall fractures, when to use a galeal frontalis flap, and how to recognize and prevent long-term complications such as mucopyocele formation.

Key Takeaways:

• Diagnosis: Forehead lacerations and glabellar hematomas are red flags; always evaluate with CT scans.

• Anterior wall fractures: Non-displaced can be observed; displaced require reduction and fixation.

• Posterior wall fractures: CSF leak, duct injury, or dural tear dictate sinus obliteration or cranialization.

• Frontonasal duct injury: Always mandates obliteration with grafts or flap coverage.

• Complications: Chronic infection, meningitis, contour deformities — long-term follow-up is essential.

References:

Yavuzer R, Sari A, Kelly CP, Tuncer S, Latifoglu O, Celebi MC, Jackson IT. Management of Frontal Sinus Fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115(6):79e–93e. doi:10.1097/01.PRS.0000161988.06847.6A

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Zygoma fractures are among the most common midfacial injuries, directly impacting both function and aesthetics. For plastic surgery residents, mastering the anatomy, evaluation, and surgical management of these fractures is essential.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we break down the essentials of zygoma fractures. From the quadripod anatomy of the zygomaticomaxillary complex to the clinical signs of malar flattening, trismus, and infraorbital nerve paresthesia, we review how to approach diagnosis and treatment. We cover preoperative imaging and timing, operative approaches from transconjunctival to coronal, and fixation strategies tailored to fracture severity. Key complications, including enophthalmos, infraorbital nerve dysfunction, and lid malposition, are highlighted with strategies for prevention and management.

Takeaways:

• Anatomy: Zygoma as a quadripod with five fixation points .

• Evaluation: Pain, diplopia, malar flattening, sensory changes .

• Timing: Ideally within 1–2 weeks; earlier for children .

• Approaches: Gingivobuccal sulcus, transconjunctival, coronal .

• Complications: Retrobulbar hematoma, enophthalmos, nerve injury .

References:

Ellstrom CL, Evans GRD. Zygoma Fractures. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(6):1649–1657. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a80819

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Middle and distal leg defects can be among the most challenging reconstructive problems in plastic surgery. But what if you could avoid microsurgery and still achieve reliable “like-with-like” coverage?

In this episode, we break down the principles, technique, and outcomes of perforator propeller flaps for lower extremity reconstruction. Drawing from the landmark PRS Global Open article by Mendieta et al. (2018), we discuss their series of 28 patients in Nicaragua and how local propeller flaps performed in small-to-medium defects of the mid and distal leg. These flaps preserve the major vascular axes, avoid the morbidity of muscle sacrifice, and eliminate the need for microsurgical anastomosis.

Key technical pearls include the two-centimeter pedicle dissection rule, use of handheld Doppler for flap planning, and ensuring tension-free inset. We’ll also cover complication rates (14% in this series, mostly partial necrosis), predictors of success, and when skin grafts for donor site closure may be necessary.

Takeaways:

• Preserve the main arteries and muscle—propeller flaps provide “like-with-like” coverage.

• Most are based on a single perforator (posterior tibial in 50% of cases).

• Up to 180° rotation is possible with careful dissection.

• Donor site can be closed primarily in most cases (85.7%).

• Complication rates are acceptable and comparable to free flaps.

References:Mendieta M, Cabrera R, Siu A, et al. Perforator Propeller Flaps for the Coverage of Middle and Distal Leg Soft-tissue Defects. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6:e1759. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001759

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

When faced with high-energy lower extremity trauma, the question of salvage versus amputation is one of the toughest decisions in reconstructive surgery. This episode breaks down the evidence and provides practical pearls for plastic surgery residents and trainees.

We walk through the landmark LEAP study and subsequent meta-analyses comparing functional outcomes between limb salvage and early amputation. We also review flap timing (Godina’s “within 72 hours” principle), the evolving role of negative pressure wound therapy, and flap selection strategies based on leg thirds. Importantly, we highlight cost-utility data and long-term functional results that shape how we counsel patients.

Key Takeaways:

• Injury severity scores should not be the sole factor in amputation decisions.

• Early flap coverage (<72 hrs) reduces infection risk, but negative pressure therapy can buy safe time.

• Limb salvage success rates approach 95% in modern free tissue transfer.

• Salvage and amputation yield similar long-term function, but salvage often carries higher complication and rehospitalization rates.

• Cost-utility analysis favors salvage for Gustilo IIIB/C fractures, especially in younger patients.

References:
Medina ND, Kovach SJ, Levin LS. An Evidence-Based Approach to Lower Extremity Acute Trauma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(2):926-931. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182046a16

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Lower extremity reconstruction is one of the most challenging areas of plastic surgery, where surgeons must decide between limb salvage and primary amputation. This episode breaks down the principles from the PRS CME article by Reddy and Stevenson, giving residents and fellows a clear roadmap for evaluation, decision-making, and flap selection.

We start with preoperative assessment: patient comorbidities (diabetes, vascular disease, smoking), vascular status, and fracture stabilization. From there, we cover the spectrum of reconstructive options—secondary intention healing, skin grafting, local flaps, free flaps, and VAC therapy.

Key discussion includes:

• Limb salvage vs. amputation: Absolute vs. relative indications, scoring systems, and functional outcomes.

• Flap selection by anatomic thirds: Gastrocnemius and tibialis anterior for proximal third; soleus for middle third; reverse sural fasciocutaneous flap for distal third.

• Free tissue transfer pearls: When to use latissimus, rectus, gracilis, or osteocutaneous fibula flaps.

• Foot reconstruction: Weight-bearing vs. non-weight-bearing surfaces, plantar flaps, and toe fillet options.

• VAC therapy: Benefits, pitfalls, and when to use it.

• Complications: Hematoma, infection, flap failure, and osteomyelitis.

By the end, you’ll have a structured way to approach lower extremity wounds, anticipate complications, and make evidence-based decisions for limb salvage.

References:
Reddy V, Stevenson TR. Lower extremity reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121(4):1–7. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000305928.98611.87

🎧 Full episodes available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Major upper extremity amputation is one of the most devastating injuries a patient can face. Unlike lower extremity amputations where prosthetics may restore function, the upper limb remains uniquely challenging. That’s why every effort should be made to replant the amputated extremity. But replantation is only the beginning — secondary reconstructive surgery is often required to optimize function.

In this episode, we review the landmark study on secondary reconstructive surgery after major upper extremity replantation. With a survival rate of 89% in 45 patients, the average number of secondary procedures was three per patient. These procedures varied predictably based on the level of injury:

• Upper arm → Most often required soft-tissue coverage and tendon transfers.

• Proximal forearm/elbow → Free functioning muscle transfers (FFMT) were most common to restore flexion/extension.

• Distal forearm/wrist → Tenolysis dominated, followed by tendon transfers and arthrodesis.

Timing also mattered: soft-tissue coverage occurred early (within weeks), while tenolysis and tendon transfers typically occurred 1–2 years post-replant. The treatment algorithm highlights how zone of injury and level of amputation guide predictable reconstructive needs.

Key Takeaways:

1. Average 3 secondary procedures per successful replant.

2. Procedure type depends on level of amputation.

3. Soft-tissue coverage is early; tendon work often delayed.

4. FFMT is crucial for proximal-level functional restoration.

5. Functional recovery is challenging but achievable with staged strategy.

   
   

📚 References:
Fufa D, Lin CH, Lin YT, Hsu CC, Chuang CC, Lin CH. Secondary Reconstructive Surgery Following Major Upper Extremity Replantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(4):713–720. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000538

🎧 Full episode available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Hand trauma with vascular compromise demands fast and accurate decision-making. In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we review two pivotal studies shaping how we triage and manage these patients: the use of pulse oximetry for objective assessment of vascular injuries and the role of IV heparin following digital replantation.

Traditional bedside exam—capillary refill, Doppler signals, pinprick—remains subjective and operator-dependent. Tarabadkar et al. (PRS, 2015) demonstrated that pulse oximetry provides reliable, objective data:

• Digits with ≥95% SpO₂ had no ischemic injury.

• Digits ≤84% SpO₂ all required operative repair .

  This tool can reduce unnecessary transfers and streamline triage.

On the anticoagulation side, Nishijima et al. (PRS, 2019) conducted a randomized trial on unfractionated heparin after digital replantation. Their findings:

• No overall survival benefit with routine heparin.

• Higher risk of congestion/complications in the heparin group.

• Subgroup benefit for patients ≥50 years old, with significantly higher success when given heparin .

Key Takeaways:

1. Pulse ox is quick, widely available, and should be part of every vascular hand trauma triage.

2. Cutoffs: ≥95% → safe; ≤84% → surgical intervention needed.

3. Routine IV heparin post-replantation is unnecessary.

4. Consider targeted use of heparin in older patients or high-risk vascular repairs.

5. Evidence-based triage + anticoagulation = better outcomes, less morbidity.

References:

• Tarabadkar N, Iorio ML, Gundle K, Friedrich JB. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136(6):1227-33. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001777

• Nishijima A, Yamamoto N, Gosho M, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(6):1224e-1232e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005665

Distal fingertip amputations are among the most common hand injuries, yet whether to replant or revise remains one of the most debated questions in hand surgery.

In this episode, we break down “A Systematic Review of the Outcomes of Replantation of Distal Digital Amputation” (Sebastin & Chung, PRS 2011). Thirty studies encompassing 2,273 distal replantations give us the best available evidence on survival, function, and complications. Contrary to the long-held belief that fingertip replants offer little value, this review shows high survival rates (86%) and meaningful functional recovery. We discuss survival differences by mechanism (clean-cut vs crush), the role of venous anastomosis, and long-term outcomes such as sensation, pulp atrophy, and nail deformity.

Key Takeaways:

• Survival: ~86% overall, similar between Zone I & II.

• Mechanism matters: Clean cuts survive better than crush/avulsion.

• Vein repair helps: Improves survival in both zones.

• Function: Mean 2-point discrimination 7 mm; most regain protective sensibility even without nerve repair.

• Work: 98% return to work reported.

• Complications: Nail deformity (~23%) and pulp atrophy (~14%) remain common.

  
  

This paper challenges the myth that distal replants are “not worth it” — showing reproducible, good outcomes when performed by skilled microsurgeons.

References:

Sebastin SJ, Chung KC. A systematic review of the outcomes of replantation of distal digital amputation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;128(3):723–737. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318221dc83

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Upper limb replantation remains one of the most challenging — and rewarding — procedures in plastic and reconstructive surgery. From fingertip injuries to major limb salvage, success depends not only on microsurgical skill but also on sound decision-making, efficient technique, and anticipating complications.

In this episode, we break down the essential principles every trainee should know when faced with an amputation on call. We review absolute and relative indications, discuss how to approach very distal fingertip injuries, and highlight pearls for zone 2 replantation, thumb salvage, avulsion injuries, and multi-digit cases. We also touch on more complex scenarios, including transmetacarpal and major limb replantation, and strategies for managing ischemia, venous congestion, and postoperative anticoagulation.

Whether you’re a resident seeing your first replant in the trauma bay, or a fellow refining your operative flow, this episode offers practical guidance to help you prioritize function over length, select the right cases, and master technical details that make the difference between survival and success.

Key takeaways:

• Replantation is always about restoring function, not just tissue.

• Thumb and multi-digit injuries take priority.

• Bone shortening, venous salvage, and nerve repair are central to good outcomes.

• Team efficiency and thoughtful sequencing matter as much as microsurgical precision.

References:Woo SH. Practical Tips to Improve Efficiency and Success in Upper Limb Replantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;144:878e–911e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000006134

🎧 Full episode available now:

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ  

Hand and upper extremity amputations are devastating injuries — but modern microsurgery has transformed outcomes. Not every part should be replanted, and today’s decisions balance survival, function, and efficiency.

In this episode of Plastics in Practice, we dive into the current concepts of upper extremity replantation. Since the first successful thumb replantations in the 1960s, the field has shifted from “save every part” toward careful patient and injury selection, maximizing functional recovery, and minimizing unnecessary costs and transfers.

We discuss:

• Clear Indications: thumb, multiple digits, mid-palm amputations, all pediatric cases.

• Contraindications: severe crush, multilevel injuries, prolonged normothermic ischemia, or patients unable to rehab.

• Injury Mechanism: sharp injuries have highest survival (~91%), while crush and avulsion lag behind but show improving outcomes with vein grafts.

• Distal Tip Injuries: often viable candidates — vein/nerve repair may not always be necessary.

• Ischemia Tolerance: digits can survive much longer than previously thought, with reports of >90 hours cold ischemia.

• Special Populations: children have remarkable recovery, and age alone shouldn’t be an exclusion.

Finally, we cover evolving practices such as replantation regionalization, use of telemedicine for triage, and pearls for venous drainage strategies.

References:

Prucz RB, Friedrich JB. Upper Extremity Replantation: Current Concepts. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133(2):333-342. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000437254.93574.a8

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ 

What if you could fix hand fractures without sedation, tourniquet pain, or costly OR time? Welcome to the era of wide-awake, local anesthesia, no tourniquet (WALANT) surgery.

In this episode, we unpack the principles, technique, and rehab pearls behind wide-awake surgical management of hand fractures. WALANT challenges long-held beliefs about epinephrine use in the finger and empowers surgeons to treat metacarpal and phalangeal fractures safely and effectively — with patients awake, engaged, and moving intraoperatively.

Key Takeaways:

• Why WALANT? Lower cost, no fasting or pre-op clearance, minimal perioperative anxiety, and high patient satisfaction .

• Intraoperative advantage: Surgeons can confirm fixation stability and detect tendon gapping by asking patients to actively move  .

• Technique pearls: Buffered lidocaine with epinephrine, periosteal blocks, and the “hole-in-one” anesthesia strategy improve comfort and hemostasis .

• Fracture fixation: K-wire configurations for metacarpal, phalangeal, and mallet injuries, with intraop fluoroscopy to confirm alignment .

• Rehab protocols: Early protected motion (Modified St. John Protocol) minimizes stiffness and speeds recovery .

• Complications: Rare cases of finger necrosis underscore the importance of knowing contraindications and phentolamine rescue .

Whether you’re a resident learning fracture fixation or an attending rethinking anesthesia strategy, WALANT offers a powerful, patient-centered approach that’s reshaping hand surgery.

References:

Hyatt BT, Rhee PC. Wide-Awake Surgical Management of Hand Fractures: Technical Pearls and Advanced Rehabilitation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019;143(3):800–810. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000005379

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/plasticsinpractice/  

Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Ct8jOgYXP9QJin7QOuG3Z?si=JNcBxQmwT2mfz1LSJZEFKA 

Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/plastics-in-practice-resident-review/id1835564216 

YouTube: https://youtube.com/@plasticsinpractice?si=tqLInp5vvsJFKlRO 

Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8bef056e-7c87-4224-978e-7e691b04554a/ 

📘 Free Study Guides: → https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/12BUldPbCmihG-ndZh6992WqhRYyxw8ZZ