José Francisco Araiza-Rodríguez

Aim: Social media has become an influential force in plastic surgery, shaping patient expectations, marketing strategies, and professional conduct. Despite its growing impact, the evidentiary foundation guiding digital engagement in the specialty remains poorly characterized. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of the 100 most cited publications addressing social media in plastic and reconstructive surgery, with a secondary assessment of methodological quality, to evaluate publication trends, thematic focus, and levels of evidence. Methods: The 100 most cited publications related to social media in plastic and reconstructive surgery were identified using Web of Science and Scopus (December 2024). Extracted variables included citation metrics, publication characteristics, country of origin, journal, and thematic focus. Methodological quality was assessed using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (LOE). Results: The 100 articles accumulated 4278 citations (range 16–180; mean 42.8 ± 32.0). Most studies were published during the 2010s (n = 63) and originated from the United States (n = 64). Dominant themes included marketing and physician behavior, with ‘Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery’ and ‘Aesthetic Surgery Journal’ as the most frequent publication venues. The literature was largely composed of low-level evidence (LOE 5, n = 26; LOE 4, n = 34; LOE 3, n = 34; LOE 2, n = 5), with only one randomized controlled trial (LOE 1). Validated patient-reported outcome measures were reported in a single study. Conclusions: Highly cited social media literature in plastic surgery demonstrates substantial visibility but limited methodological rigor. The predominance of low-level evidence and minimal use of validated outcomes highlights a disconnect between digital influence and scientific quality. Strengthening the evidence base is essential to ensure credibility, ethical practice, and alignment with evidence-based medicine.

Background and objectives: Acute colicky abdominal pain, involving visceral spasms and inflammatory mechanisms, is a common complaint in everyday medical practice. Despite its widespread use, clinical evidence on the fixed-dose combination of pargeverine 10 mg plus lysine clonixinate 125 mg remains limited. The objective of this study was to describe real-world clinical outcomes, safety, and patient-reported experience associated with this combination in routine practice. Materials and methods: This multicenter, observational, non-comparative, real-world study included adult patients with acute colicky abdominal pain of gastrointestinal, urological, or gynecological origin. Pain intensity was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS) at baseline and at 5 ± 3 days. Secondary outcomes included time to pain relief, satisfaction with treatment, and safety. Associations between pain reduction and patient-reported outcomes were explored. Results: A total of 202 patients were analyzed. Significant pain reduction was observed across all etiologies (p < 0.001), with median VAS reductions ranging from 6 to 9 points (approximately 70% to 90% from baseline). More than 95% of patients reported early improvement, and sustained relief was maintained in more than 96% throughout the study period, regardless of the pain’s origin. Adverse events were infrequent (3%), mild in intensity (primarily transient gastrointestinal symptoms), and did not lead to treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: In real-world clinical practice, the fixed-dose combination of pargeverine and lysine clonixinate was associated with early and sustained, clinically meaningful pain reduction across multiple forms of acute visceral colicky pain, with a favorable safety and tolerability profile, supporting its relevance as a short-term therapeutic option in mild to severe acute pain.

Background/Objectives: Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a highly variable inflammatory condition that can lead to severe complications and high mortality, particularly in its severe forms. Early risk stratification is essential; however, the delayed availability of traditional scoring systems often limits its effectiveness. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of systemic inflammation indices as early predictors of severity in patients with acute pancreatitis. Methods: A retrospective, observational study was conducted among patients diagnosed with acute pancreatitis, classified according to the revised Atlanta criteria. Upon admission, systemic inflammation indices were calculated from complete blood count parameters, including neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio (MLR), systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), systemic inflammation response index (SIRI), and aggregate index of systemic inflammation (AISI). Severity was assessed using the APACHE II score. Statistical analysis involved Kruskal–Wallis tests, Dunn’s post hoc comparisons, ROC curve analysis, logistic regression for odds ratios (ORs), and Spearman correlations. Results: SII, NLR, MLR, SIRI, and AISI showed statistically significant associations with AP severity (p < 0.05). MLR and SIRI exhibited the highest predictive performance (AUC = 0.74). ORs for severe pancreatitis were: MLR = 19.10, SIRI = 7.50, NLR = 7.33, AISI = 5.12, and SII = 4.10. All four indices also demonstrated moderate positive correlations with APACHE II scores. Conclusions: Systemic inflammation indices are simple, cost-effective, and accessible tools that can aid in the early identification of patients at high risk for severe acute pancreatitis. Their integration into clinical practice may enhance early decision-making and improve patient outcomes.