The effects of nonvascularized versus vascularized bone grafting on calvarial defect healing.

It remains unknown whether bone graft vascularity influences calvarial healing. The purposes of this study were (1) to develop a model to study nonvascularized and vascularized calvarial grafts as well as (2) to compare effects of bone graft vascularity on calvarial healing. Bilateral calvarial defects were created in 26 Wistar rats. The defects were left empty within 1 parietal region. On the contralateral side, the defects were partially closed with native parietal bone (control group, n = 6), nonvascularized (N-V, n = 10), or vascularized bone grafts (VAS, n = 10). The vascularized grafts were supplied by perforating dural arterioles. Bone mineralization and healing patterns from serial microcomputed tomographic scans were compared within and across the groups using parametric and nonparametric tests. Differences in bone mineral content across sides were significant between the groups at weeks 6 (P = 0.016) and 12 (P = 0.025). Bone formation was greater within both the control and VAS groups versus the N-V group at weeks 6 and 12 (P \u3c 0.05). Healing patterns differed between the groups (P \u3c 0.05), progressing through islands of new bone formation within the control and VAS groups while limited to defect margins on the N-V graft side. In conclusion, a bilateral calvarial defect model was established to study bone graft vascularity. Bone quantity and healing patterns differed in the presence of the nonvascularized versus vascularized grafts. Although the calvarial defect model is often applied within the plastic surgery literature to study bone substitutes, greater understanding of basic mechanisms influencing calvarial healing is first needed to avoid confounding results

Feasibility of Surgeon-Delivered Audit and Feedback Incorporating Peer Surgical Coaching to Reduce Fistula Incidence following Cleft Palate Repair: A Pilot Trial

Background: Improving surgeons\u27 technical performance may reduce their frequency of postoperative complications. The authors conducted a pilot trial to evaluate the feasibility of a surgeon-delivered audit and feedback intervention incorporating peer surgical coaching on technical performance among surgeons performing cleft palate repair, in advance of a future effectiveness trial. Methods: A nonrandomized, two-arm, unblinded pilot trial enrolled surgeons performing cleft palate repair. Participants completed a baseline audit of fistula incidence. Participants with a fistula incidence above the median were allocated to an intensive feedback intervention that included selecting a peer surgical coach, observing the coach perform palate repair, reviewing operative video of their own surgical technique with the coach, and proposing and implementing changes in their technique. All others were allocated to simple feedback (receiving audit results). Outcomes assessed were proportion of surgeons completing the baseline audit, disclosing their fistula incidence to peers, and completing the feedback intervention. Results: Seven surgeons enrolled in the trial. All seven completed the baseline audit and disclosed their fistula incidence to other participants. The median baseline fistula incidence was 0.4 percent (range, 0 to 10.5 percent). Two surgeons were unable to receive the feedback intervention. Of the five remaining surgeons, two were allocated to intensive feedback and three to simple feedback. All surgeons completed their assigned feedback intervention. Among surgeons receiving intensive feedback, fistula incidence was 5.9 percent at baseline and 0.0 percent following feedback (adjusted OR, 0.98; 95 percent CI, 0.44 to 2.17). Conclusion: Surgeon-delivered audit and feedback incorporating peer coaching on technical performance was feasible for surgeons