Challenging Dogmas in Plastic Surgery

Abstract

In medicine, dogmas are subject to evolution and refinement as new research and technologies emerge. The aim of this study was to search for dogmas which were challenged and potentially revised in the plastic surgery field. A search on PubMed for “dogma and plastic surgery” yielded 80 papers. The queries “surgical dogma and craniofacial surgery” and “surgical dogma and flap” returned 9 and 21 papers, respectively. “Surgical dogma and hand” and “surgical dogma and wound healing” produced 41 and 25 papers, respectively. Removing 35 duplicate papers, 141 abstracts were reviewed. Of these, 78 were excluded, leaving 63 papers for analysis. The dogmas being challenged within the field of plastic surgery were classified into various categories. The distribution of these challenged dogmas was as follows: wound healing: 14.29%, epinephrine use: 9.52%, flap surgery: 7.94%, breast reconstruction: 6.35%, rhinoplasty: 7.94%, hand surgery: 4.76%, pressure sores: 4.76%, chemical peel: 4.76%, and hand injuries: 3.17%. The widespread focus on improving wound healing techniques indicates a need for more effective treatments and faster recovery times. Significant attention has been directed toward the use of epinephrine, particularly in fingers, which may reflect ongoing debates about its safety. Innovations and improvements in flap surgery could lead to better reconstructive outcomes. Challenging existing dogma is a vital process and a driving force in the advancement of clinical science. These challenges and potential revisions reflect the dynamic nature of plastic surgery, where ongoing research, patient outcomes, and evolving societal norms drive continuous improvement and adaptation in practices and principles.