Purpose: To discover oculofacial plastic surgeon practice patterns for cautery selection in the setting of implantable electronic devices and present guidelines based on a review of current literature.
Methods: A 10-Question web-based survey was sent to the email list serve of the American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery to determine surgeon cautery preference in the setting of various implantable electronic devices and comfort level with the guidelines for cautery selection in their practice or institution. The relationship between survey questions was assessed for statistical significance using Pearson's Chi-square tests.
Results: Two hundred ninety-three (41% response rate) surveys were completed and included for analysis. Greater than half of respondents either had no policy (36%) or were unaware of a policy (19%) in their practice or institution regarding cautery selection in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device. Bipolar cautery was favored for use in patients with a cardiac implantable electronic device (79%-80%) and this number dropped in patients with implantable neurostimulators (30%). Overall, one-third of respondents did not feel comfortable with their practice/institution policy.
Conclusion: Choices and comfort level among oculofacial plastic surgeons for cautery selection in patients with implantable electronic devices vary considerably, and some choices may increase the risk for interference-related complications. Practice patterns vary significantly in the setting of a neurostimulator or cochlear implant, where interference can cause thermal injury to the brain and implant damage, respectively. Guidelines are proposed for cautery selection in patients with implantable electronic devices undergoing oculofacial plastic surgery.
Keywords: Deep brain stimulators; electromagnetic interference; electrosurgery; implantable electronic devices; oculofacial plastic surgery; pacemakers.