About

Jonathan M. Bekisz, MD, is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Hansjorg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery at NYU Grossman School of Medicine. He specializes in Plastic Surgery, Hand & Wrist Surgery, Hand Plastic Surgery, and Orthoplastic Surgery, treating both adults and children. Dr. Bekisz completed his MD at New York University in 2018 and is currently undertaking a fellowship in Orthopaedic Hand Surgery at Mass General Brigham/Massachusetts General Hospital, expected in 2025. His professional profile indicates a focus on surgical expertise in hand and plastic surgery, contributing to the academic and clinical missions of NYU Langone Health.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Surgery
• Biomedical engineering
• Dentistry
• Orthodontics

Selected publications

• Spontaneous Closed Extensor Tendon Ruptures in the Nonrheumatoid Hand and Wrist

  Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2026-02-16

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Extensor tendon disruptions are frequently seen in emergency rooms and hand surgery offices. Traumatic open injuries are more familiar, but spontaneous closed extensor tendon ruptures represent an important clinical entity. Often occurring without any prodromal warning, they can surprise patients and their providers alike. Spontaneous extensor tendon ruptures often occur in the setting of systemic medical conditions or hand and wrist pathology, with the mechanisms that lead to rupture often dependent upon the underlying comorbidities. Remaining knowledge of the factors that place patients at risk of developing these problems is vital to maintain the necessary suspicion to ensure prompt diagnosis and facilitate proper treatment.

  PublisherDOI

• Arterialized Saphenous Vein Transfer for Microvascular Free Flap Reconstruction of Complex Posterior Defects

  Microsurgery · 2026-03-01

  article

  ABSTRACT Purpose Complex posterior defects often present significant reconstructive challenges, particularly due to the scarcity of suitable recipient vessels. In these cases, an arterialized saphenous vein transfer can facilitate flap perfusion when direct anastomosis is not feasible. This study presents our institutional experience using an arterialized saphenous vein transfer for microvascular free flap (MVFF) reconstruction of posterior defects. Methods We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent posterior MVFF reconstruction using an arterialized saphenous vein transfer. Patient demographics, comorbidities, defect etiologies (including trauma, silicone injection, malignancy, and congenital abnormalities), flap types, and perioperative outcomes were collected through manual chart review. Results Six patients with eight MVFFs were included. Five were adults and one was a child; four were females and two were males. All defects were located on the posterior trunk/buttocks. Flap types included four standard latissimus dorsi (LD), three anterolateral thigh (ALT), and one extended conjoined LD flap. Average skin paddle size was 232 cm 2 (±73). Arterialized saphenous vein transfer arterial inflow sources included the descending branch of the lateral femoral circumflex artery ( n = 6), deep inferior epigastric artery ( n = 1), and transverse branch of the superficial femoral artery ( n = 1). Average operative time was 11:00 h (±2:50); median hospital stay was 12 days (range: 6–76). There were no flap losses. One patient required two flap explorations; two patients required postoperative blood transfusions. At a mean follow‐up of 1247 days (±393), all flaps had healed, including persistent minor wounds in the two silicone injection cases. Conclusions Arterialized saphenous vein transfers enabled durable, successful MVFF reconstruction in complex posterior defects and represent a reliable option in anatomically challenging scenarios.

  PublisherDOI

• Comparison of Reoperation and Complication Rates Between Acute and Delayed Advanced Nerve Interface Procedures in Lower-Extremity Amputees

  Journal of Clinical Medicine · 2026-01-21

  articleOpen access

  Background/Objectives: Targeted muscle reinnervation and regenerative peripheral nerve interface procedures have emerged as effective techniques for reducing post-amputation pain and preventing symptomatic neuroma formation. However, the optimal timing of these procedures remains debated. This study aims to compare complication and reoperation rates between acute and delayed advanced nerve interface procedures in lower-extremity amputees. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted including 74 patients who underwent acute or delayed targeted muscle reinnervation and/or regenerative peripheral nerve interface procedures between 2019 and 2025 at a tertiary academic medical center. Procedures performed concurrently with amputation or during early-stage reconstruction were classified as acute, whereas procedures performed more than one month after amputation were classified as delayed interventions. The primary outcome was postoperative surgical complications occurring within one year. Mann–Whitney U and chi-square tests were used for group comparisons. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with surgical complications, adjusting for potential confounders. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Of 80 limbs, 47 (58.8%) underwent acute and 33 (41.3%) underwent delayed procedures. One-year complication rates were 23.4% in the acute group, and 12.1% in the delayed group, with wound-related complications predominantly occurring in patients undergoing amputation for infection or vascular disease. Unexpected reoperation rates were 19.1% for acute and 12.1% for delayed interventions. On univariable and multivariable analyses, early procedures demonstrated higher odds of surgical complications. However, these associations did not reach statistical significance and were limited by baseline differences in patient comorbidity and etiology. Conclusions: Early advanced nerve interface procedures were performed in more medically complex patients and were associated with higher observed rates of surgical complications, whereas delayed procedures were associated with a higher incidence of recurrent symptomatic neuromas. These findings underscore the importance of patient selection, etiology of amputation, and surgical context, rather than timing alone, when determining the optimal approach to nerve interface reconstruction following lower-extremity amputation.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Osteoarthritis

  Contemporary surgical clerkships · 2025-01-01

  book-chapterSenior author
  PublisherDOI

• Reduction of Acute Zygomatic Arch Fractures With Intraoperative Ultrasound

  Annals of Plastic Surgery · 2025-04-01 · 1 citations

  article

  BACKGROUND: Zygomatic arch (ZA) fractures are a common facial fracture, and reduction is typically performed blind via a Gillies or Keen approach. Postoperative confirmation of reduction thus requires advanced imaging, which may not be readily available in all settings. Thus, there exists a need for an effective, low-cost imaging paradigm to employ in these clinical scenarios. Herein, we introduce the ultrasonic arch reduction (USA Reduction) for ZA fractures. METHODS: All consecutive patients with ZA fractures undergoing a USA Reduction at a single public hospital were reviewed. Patients were operated on by two plastic surgeons. A standard Gillies approach was used in all cases in conjunction with real-time intraoperative ultrasound. All relevant patient data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Two patients were included in our study. Patient 1 was a 43-year-old man who was assaulted and sustained a right comminuted zygomatic arch fracture without concomitant trauma. Patient 2 was a 35-year-old man who was hit by a train and sustained a left comminuted ZA fracture in addition to traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Both fractures were successfully reduced under ultrasound guidance in under 1 hour of operating room (OR) time without necessitating the use of postoperative CT. To date, both patients endorse positive postoperative satisfaction with their results. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative ultrasound is a safe and effective tool for confirming reduction of ZA fractures in a resource-limited practice while obviating the need for additional radiation. Further investigations to standardize the technique and approach will be useful to optimize this intraoperative adjunct.

  PublisherDOI

• Who’s on Call? Mandibular Fracture Management at a Level I Trauma Center

  Journal of Clinical Medicine · 2025-07-03 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access

  Background: Facial trauma is one of the few surgical conditions that is routinely managed by three distinct disciplines, including Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), and Otolaryngology (ENT). This study aims to evaluate mandibular trauma management strategies and clinical outcomes among three operating services. Methods: An IRB-approved, retrospective chart review was performed over a ten-year period (2007–2016) at a major, urban, Level I trauma center for all patients treated for an isolated mandibular injury determined by ICD-9 codes. Of the 2299 patients evaluated for traumatic facial injuries, 191 met the inclusion criteria and 137 had longitudinal data. Patient, fracture, and management characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared among three surgical services. Results: Most patients were male (95.3%), and assaults were the most common etiology of injury (79.1%). The angle/ramus was the most common single location (31.4%), and 47.6% of patients had multiple fractures. There was a statistically significant difference between specialties when assessing the use of operative versus non-operative approaches to fracture management (p < 0.001), and within operative management, for the use of open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) alone versus ORIF with maxillomandibular fixation (MMF) (p = 0.002). There was no significant difference in the overall complications between specialties (p = 0.227). Conclusions: Services differ in their decision to pursue operative versus non-operative management, as well as the decision for postoperative MMF, though these differences in decision-making were not associated with a significant difference in the overall complications.

  PublisherDOI

• Discussion: Do Surgeons Treat Their Patients’ Upper Extremity Nerve Palsies as They Would Treat Their Own?

  Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2025-09-24

  article1st authorCorresponding

  Nerve injuries remain challenging for both patients and surgeons. Considerable debate exists about the optimal management for a particular injury, with decisions varying based on patient-specific factors, cause of injury, and surgeon experience and preference. In this study, the authors sought to identify differences in the ways surgeons approach the treatment of upper extremity nerve palsies, with regard to the interventions they would offer their patients compared with what they would want done for themselves.1 Patients often ask the question, “what would you do if you had this injury?” when discussing treatment options with their surgeon. The authors have previously explored this topic in a 2015 article that examined surgical decision-making for a selection of hand and upper extremity diagnoses. The group found that for certain abnormalities, surgeons were more likely to offer surgery to patients than they would be to seek surgery for themselves.2 That study did not include upper extremity nerve palsies, and thus, they endeavored to address this specific question within this article. This survey-based study of surgeons with experience treating upper extremity nerve palsies prompted respondents to make treatment decisions for a series of clinical scenarios involving both traumatic and nontraumatic upper extremity nerve palsies. Respondents were asked to decide whether to intervene operatively, and to determine the recommended operation. Surgeons involved in the study were separated into 2 groups: the first was asked to make decisions for a hypothetical patient, and the second was told to choose how they would want to be treated if they were diagnosed with the same problem. When responses were compared between groups, there were no differences in either the likelihood of offering surgery or the type of procedure offered. Although the authors should be commended for their efforts to better understand decision-making for nerve injuries, there are several limitations of this study that merit discussion. Both the complexity and nuance related to decision-making for upper extremity nerve palsies are difficult to capture in a survey-based study. The clinical scenarios presented do not incorporate the myriad factors that guide choices for surgeons and their patients—such as age, comorbid conditions, patient desires/goals, and expected capacity for either spontaneous or postsurgical recovery (among others). The study’s presentation of each nerve palsy as a “black-and-white” entity oversimplifies these scenarios and introduces bias in the responses. Inclusion of more specific, granular clinical scenarios would likely have led to more useful information related to the differences between what surgeons would offer their patients compared with their personal desires for a particular situation. Another limitation of the study is the exclusive grouping of respondents; no surgeon was asked to decide on treatment both for a hypothetical patient and for themselves. Although the a priori power analysis indicated a sufficiently sized sample to detect differences in treatment decisions with 69 respondents, it seems a missed opportunity to not have respondents provide both their recommendations for patients and their own preferences. This would have increased their sample size, provided the most direct answer to their study question, and also accounted for differences in surgeon training/experience and personal practice patterns (ie, degree of surgical “aggressiveness” for nerve injuries). Perhaps the most valuable points of discussion center on the individual scenarios in which respondents were more or less likely to pursue surgical intervention and how these scenarios align with the described natural history. A generally accepted algorithm advocates for exploration of nerve palsies following sharp penetrating injuries and observation for blunt traumatic or closed injuries, idiopathic palsies, and postoperative iatrogenic palsies in which there was no obvious intraoperative injury. The authors interestingly state that spontaneous recovery rates in closed traumatic brachial plexus injuries and idiopathic spinal accessory nerve palsies are quite poor, and operative intervention can play an important role in improving outcomes. Interestingly, these scenarios were among the least likely to prompt survey respondents to decide on surgery, which was most often chosen in radial and ulnar nerve palsies following fractures of the humerus and distal radius, respectively. Although rare, ulnar nerve palsy following distal radius fracture is an entity that seems to benefit from early intervention.3–5 However, the high rates of spontaneous recovery of radial nerve palsies, both in the setting of acute humerus fractures and following surgical fixation, may argue against operative intervention.6–8 Surgeon training, experience, and expertise factor into the decision-making for intervention, although it is the preference of the senior author of this discussion (K.R.E.) to intervene surgically in many (if not most) clinical presentations of acute traumatic and postoperative nerve palsies, as exploration can identify potentially unrecognized nerve injuries, provide additional clinical information for prognostication, and afford nerve decompression, which may help in facilitating nerve recovery. This article highlights the uncertainty that continues to challenge patients and surgeons when treating nerve palsies. Additional data are needed to better understand the clinical situations necessitating intervention, the proper timing of surgery, and selection of the optimal intervention. This will then foster development of personalized treatment algorithms to help optimize surgeon and patient decision-making for such challenging nerve injuries. DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest in any of the drugs, products, or devices mentioned in this Discussion or in the associated article.

  PublisherDOI

• Articular Surface Damage Following Headless Intramedullary Nail Fixation of Proximal Phalanx Fractures

  The Journal Of Hand Surgery · 2024-08-06 · 2 citations

  article1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Artificial Intelligence as a Triage Tool during the Perioperative Period: Pilot Study of Accuracy and Accessibility for Clinical Application

  Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2024-02-01 · 14 citations

  articleOpen accessCorresponding

  Background: Given the dialogistic properties of ChatGPT, we hypothesized that this artificial intelligence (AI) function can be used as a self-service tool where clinical questions can be directly answered by AI. Our objective was to assess the content, accuracy, and accessibility of AI-generated content regarding common perioperative questions for reduction mammaplasty. Methods: ChatGPT (OpenAI, February Version, San Francisco, Calif.) was used to query 20 common patient concerns that arise in the perioperative period of a reduction mammaplasty. Searches were performed in duplicate for both a general term and a specific clinical question. Query outputs were analyzed both objectively and subjectively. Descriptive statistics, t tests, and chi-square tests were performed where appropriate with a predetermined level of significance of P less than 0.05. Results: From a total of 40 AI-generated outputs, mean word length was 191.8 words. Readability was at the thirteenth grade level. Regarding content, of all query outputs, 97.5% were on the appropriate topic. Medical advice was deemed to be reasonable in 100% of cases. General queries more frequently reported overarching background information, whereas specific queries more frequently reported prescriptive information ( P < 0.0001). AI outputs specifically recommended following surgeon provided postoperative instructions in 82.5% of instances. Conclusions: Currently available AI tools, in their nascent form, can provide recommendations for common perioperative questions and concerns for reduction mammaplasty. With further calibration, AI interfaces may serve as a tool for fielding patient queries in the future; however, patients must always retain the ability to bypass technology and be able to contact their surgeon.

  PublisherDOI

• Differential preferences in breast aesthetics by self-identified demographics assessed on a national survey

  Journal of Plastic Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery · 2024-02-01 · 2 citations

  article
  PublisherDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Roberto L. Flores

  Khalifa University of Science and Technology

  69 shared

• Nolan S. Karp

  NYU Langone Health

  68 shared

• Mihye Choi

  66 shared

• Ara A. Salibian

  University of California, Davis

  58 shared

• Christopher D. Lopez

  Johns Hopkins Medicine

  47 shared

• Carter J. Boyd

  NYU Langone Health

  45 shared

• Paulo G. Coelho

  University of Miami

  45 shared

• Lukasz Witek

  New York University

  43 shared

Education

• MD

  New York University School of Medicine

• BA, Biology

  University of Pennsylvania

  2013