Casey, William

Abstract Robots have been used effectively in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) for reconstruction. The utilization of robotics in all surgical specialties is expanding with the goal of offering the most appropriate patient-centered care possible, especially in complex multidisciplinary cases. Despite the safety, efficiency, and reproducibility of robotics in PRS, there is a paucity of required and formalized training in PRS residency programs. The ACGME and industry published guidelines were investigated. Robotic surgery case logs of Mayo Clinic Arizona General Surgery residents were analyzed with attention to equivalency certification (EQ). Over the past 5 years, the equivalency certification from Intuitive (Sunnyvale, CA) was obtained by 30% of all general surgery residents at our institution (range, 0–100). The case numbers to obtain the equivalence certification are industry recommendations, and proficiency is determined by the program director. The ACGME does not mandate robotics training in general surgery residency. According to the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), trainees must complete 20 console cases and 10 bedside cases to become industry certified. With respect to training and advancing the field, PRS residents could successfully obtain certification in their residency programs. The minimum case requirement recommended by SAGES is not burdensome and can ensure robotic privileges in PRS practice immediately following graduation. By improving the training for minimally invasive robotic surgery in plastic surgery, patients and healthcare systems benefit from improved quality of life outcomes and decreased postoperative length of stay, which results in less strain on our entire medical system.

Background: Delivering ethical care in global plastic surgery is challenging due to the unique complexities of resource-limited settings. Additionally, the rise of medical tourism has highlighted the importance of informed consent and awareness of the potential risks that are associated with seeking medical care in foreign countries. This article aims to consider core medical ethics principles and apply them in the context of delivering global plastic surgery. Methods: This article examines the application of the four core medical ethics principles in a framework set forth by Beauchamp and Childress, namely autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice, in the context of delivering plastic surgery in international settings. A literature review was performed, where all potential global plastic surgery articles were reviewed to better understand the application of the four core medical ethics framework in this context. Results: Increased communication between visiting surgeons and local healthcare providers; heightened education of surgeons traveling to low-to-middle-income countries regarding local medical practices, resource availability, and cultural norms before providing surgical education; and a greater emphasis on collecting and publishing data analyzing short- and long-term outcomes in low-to-middle-income countries are all likely to improve the success of international medical missions, ensuring that all patients receive medical treatment in a manner that upholds Beauchamp and Childress’ four core medical ethics principles. Conclusion: Providing plastic and reconstructive surgery abroad can be done ethically if the four main principles of medical ethics (respect for autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice) are used.

Objective: This study investigates Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols’ impact on long-term opioid and sedative use following mastectomy with or without implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Background: ERAS protocols for patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR are associated with decreased length of stay, increased rate of same-day discharge, decreased postoperative pain, and decreased postoperative opioid requirements. However, less is known about their effect on opioid and sedative use beyond 90 days after surgery. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR at a single institution between January 2013 and December 2019. Mastectomy ERAS protocols were implemented in February 2017, creating 2 groups: pre-ERAS and ERAS. Baseline characteristics and prevalence of chronic opioid and sedative use were compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression predicted factors associated with increased odds of chronic opioid and sedative use. Results: A total of 756 patients were evaluated: 405 pre-ERAS and 351 ERAS. Post-ERAS, chronic opioid use decreased in opioid-naive (40% vs 30%, P=0.024) and opioid-tolerant patients (58% vs 37%, P=0.002), with no increase in chronic sedative use. There were decreased odds of chronic opioid use for all ERAS patients (OR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.42–0.76), and of IBBR patients, those receiving subcutaneous implants (OR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20–0.48). There was increased chronic opioid-use odds if undergoing bilateral surgery (OR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.14–2.08), 2-stage reconstruction (OR=9.78, 95% CI: 5.94-16.09), and for patients with higher PACU pain scores (OR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.03–1.14) or >150 discharge OMEs (OR=2.63, 95% CI: 1.48–4.68). Conclusion: ERAS protocols for mastectomy patients with or without IBR are associated with decreases in chronic opioid use, without concomitant increases in chronic sedative use.

BACKGROUND: Although the overall psychosocial benefits and body image gains of postmastectomy breast reconstruction are well-established, there is limited information on how postoperative complications affect patient quality of life (QOL). STUDY DESIGN: A single-institution cross-sectional survey analysis was performed on patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction between 2008 and 2020. QOL was assessed using the BREAST-Q and the Was It Worth It questionnaires. The results were compared among patients who had major complications, minor complications, and no complications. Responses were compared using 1-way ANOVA and chi-square tests as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 568 patients met inclusion criteria, and 244 patients responded (43% response rate). Most patients did not have any complications (n = 128; 52%), 41 had minor complications (17%), and 75 had major complications (31%). There were no differences in any of the BREAST-Q well-being metrics based on degree of complication. Across all 3 groups, patients reported that surgery was worthwhile (n = 212; 88%), they would choose reconstruction again (n = 203; 85%), and they would recommend it to a friend (n = 196; 82%). Overall, 77% reported that their overall experience either met or exceeded expectations, and 88% of patients had unchanged or improved overall QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that QOL and well-being are not negatively impacted by postoperative complications. Although patients who had no complications had an overall more positive experience, nearly two-thirds of all patients, no matter the degree of complication, stated that their overall experience either met or exceeded their expectations.