Dataset Information

Milestones in Oculofacial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery: The Discovery of the Levator Palpebrae Superioris and Its Subsequent History.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This review aims to substantiate attributions of priority for the discovery and first description of the levator palpebrae superioris (LPS) muscle to Matteo Realdo Colombo [Columbus] (1516-1559), and to describe the history of this muscle from ancient to modern times.

Methods

Relevant chapters on eyelid and eye muscles in Colombo's De re anatomica (1559) were translated, and the work was further analyzed from a historical perspective. Literature on the anatomy of human eyelid and orbital striated muscles was reviewed from the publication of the Fabrica (1543) by Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) through modern times. The discovery of the LPS was viewed in relation to other milestones along the road that led to the establishment of the subspecialty of oculofacial and orbital plastic surgery.

Results

The first description of the LPS appeared in De re anatomica (1559) by Colombo who correctly identified the LPS as a retractor of the (upper) eyelid and the orbicularis oculi as its protractor. The current lack of recognition of the priority of Colombo's description of the LPS stemmed from his lifelong rivalries with other anatomists, improved descriptions of the orbital muscles by Gabriele Falloppio (1523-1562) that soon followed, and historical controversies over other anatomical discoveries.

Conclusions

Colombo discovered the LPS and described the antagonistic functions of retractors and protractors of the eyelid, just a portion of his broader contributions to anatomy. Colombo's discoveries of such ophthalmologic and oculofacial plastic surgical importance should be added to the ongoing reappraisals of Colombo by medical historians.

SUBMITTER: Reifler DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8263133 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe usefulness of topical antibiotic prophylaxis for routine oculofacial plastic surgery is not well established. Given concerns such as contact dermatitis, antibiotic resistance, and healthcare costs in conjunction with a low baseline rate of surgical site infections, the investigators sought to determine the frequency of infection with and without the use of topical antibiotic prophylaxis.DesignRandomized, controlled, unmasked clinical trial.ParticipantsAdult patients undergoing routine periocular surgery without prior history of periocular surgical site infection, need for perioperative oral or parenteral antibiotics, or allergy to all study medications.MethodsParticipants were randomized before surgery to receive either antibiotic or placebo (mineral oil and petrolatum-based) ointment after surgery. Outcomes were measured at the first postoperative visit. The 2-tailed Fisher exact test was used to compare outcomes between groups.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence of surgical site infections. The secondary outcomes included stratification of infections by patient risk characteristics, incidence of allergic contact dermatitis, and incidence of wound complications.ResultsFour hundred one participants were enrolled and randomized, and 13 participants did not proceed with surgery or were lost to follow-up. High-risk features for infection were identified in 24% of the placebo group and 21% of the antibiotic group. Surgical site infections were more common in the placebo group (2.7% vs. 0.0%; P = 0.025). The rate of contact dermatitis was similar (0.5% vs. 0.5%; P = 1.00), as was the rate of wound dehiscence (2.7% vs. 3.5%; P = 0.77). Among the placebo group, the incidence of infections in the low- and high-risk participants was 2.9% and 2.2%, respectively. Infections were treated with oral or topical antibiotics and resolved without complication, except in 1 patient who required 2 subsequent surgeries to address the sequelae.ConclusionsAfter routine oculofacial plastic surgery, patients treated with a topical antibiotic ointment showed a lower risk of surgical site infection compared with patients treated with a nonantibiotic ointment.

Project description:PurposeThe COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges for oculoplastic surgeons worldwide, in terms of care delivery, medical equipment and at-risk patient management. To date, there are no centralized or compiled international COVID-19 guidelines for oculoplastic surgeons.MethodsWe examined COVID-19 guidelines published by oculoplastic societies worldwide. All countries around the world were initially considered in this study, but only 9 oculoplastic societies met the inclusion criteria: (1) publicly available guidelines displayed on the oculoplastic society's website, or (2) guidelines received from the oculoplastic society after contacting them twice using the contact information on their website.ResultsThe 9 oculoplastic societies examined include: the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the British Oculoplastic Surgery Society, the Canadian Society of Oculoplastic Surgery, the European Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, la Sociedad Española de Cirugía Plástica Ocular y Orbitaria, la Asociación Colombiana de Cirugía Plastica Ocular, the Asia Pacific Society of Ophthalmic Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, the Oculoplastics Association of India, and the Philippine Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. They all agree that urgent procedures should not be delayed, while non-necessary procedures (including all elective clinic services) should be postponed. When adequate protective equipment is available, oculoplastic surgeons must treat urgent cases. Eight out of 9 societies have provided recommendations on personal protective equipment use in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to adequately protect mucous membranes. Other recommendations provided by certain societies are related to shelter in place measures, hand hygiene and surface disinfection protocols, patient triage, and thyroid eye disease management.ConclusionsAll 9 societies with published recommendations have provided valuable recommendations to their members, regarding urgency of care and infection control solutions (personal protective equipment, hand hygiene, telemedicine, and social isolation).

Project description:Importance:Best practices for antibiotic use after facial plastic and reconstructive procedures have been the subject of much debate, and there is a need for large-scale data to guide further development of evidence-based guidelines for antibiotic use in this setting. Objective:To assess patterns of postoperative antibiotic prescriptions and infection rates after nasal and oculoplastic procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted using IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental research databases of 294?039 patients who underwent facial plastic surgery procedures between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015. Patients were excluded if they were younger than 18 years, lacked continuous insurance coverage for 1 year before and after the procedure, or underwent additional procedures on the surgery date of interest. Statistical analysis was performed from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcomes were antibiotic prescription patterns in the immediate postoperative period and rates of postoperative infectious complications. Explanatory variables included patient demographics, procedure type, and relevant comorbidities, which were used in multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results:Of the 294?039 patients who met inclusion criteria (55.9% women and 44.1% men; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [18.6 years]), 45.2% filled prescriptions for postoperative antibiotics, including 55.3% of patients undergoing nasal procedures and 14.7% of patients undergoing oculoplastic procedures. Superficial surgical site infections occurred in 1.6% of patients, while deep surgical site infections occurred in 0.3% of patients. On multivariable logistic regression, patients receiving postoperative antibiotics were at significantly decreased risk of postoperative infections (nasal procedures: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.144 [95% CI, 0.102-0.203]; oculoplastic procedures: aOR, 0.254 [95% CI, 0.104-0.622]) compared with those who did not receive postoperative antibiotics. Increased duration of postoperative antibiotics was not associated with reduced rates of infectious complications (nasal procedures: aOR, 1.000 [95% CI, 0.978-1.022]; oculoplastic procedures: aOR, 1.024 [95% CI, 0.959-01.092]). Despite being more likely to experience postoperative infections, patients with a history of tobacco use (aOR, 0.806 [95% CI, 0.747-0.870]), immunodeficiency (aOR, 0.774 [95% CI, 0.737-0.813]), or type 1 or 2 diabetes (aOR, 0.810 [95% CI, 0.772-0.850]) were less likely to be prescribed antibiotics than those without these conditions. Conclusions and Relevance:Postoperative antibiotic prescriptions were associated with reduced rates of infections after facial plastic surgery. This study highlights the role of population-level data in the development of best practices for postoperative antibiotic use and identifies the need for additional examination of antibiotic use patterns and recommendations for populations at increased risk for postoperative wound infection.