Perdikis, Galen

Introduction Although neurotization has the potential to improve sensory outcomes after autologous breast reconstruction, this technique remains controversial. There is debate regarding the clinical outcomes and the recipient nerve of choice. This histoanatomical study aims to quantitatively compare the sensory components of the recipient nerves involved in neurotization of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. Methods Subjects undergoing bilateral autologous breast reconstruction were enrolled. Transected nerve specimens underwent immunohistochemical staining with antibodies against neurofilament 1 and choline acetyltransferase for total and motor neurons within the axons, respectively. Photomicrographs were captured, and axons were analyzed using ImageJ. Sensory axons were calculated as equal to the difference between the total and cholinergic axonal counts. Results Thirty-eight nerves from 19 subjects were included. The overall mean sensory axon count was 1246.3 (±1171.9) in the lateral cutaneous branch (LCB) of the fourth intercostal nerve and 1123.8 (±1213.0) in the anterior cutaneous branch (ACB) of the third intercostal nerve. The fourth LCB presented with an additional 10.9% sensory axonal count (P > 0.05). On average, sensory fibers constituted 36.7% and 31.7% of all fibers in the third ACBs and fourth LCBs, respectively. Conclusions This study provides anatomic and histological evidence that the fourth LCB and third ACB contain comparable mean numbers of sensory axons. Both constitute adequate recipient nerves for coaptation in deep inferior epigastric perforator reinnervation to achieve optimal sensory return after breast reconstruction. The fourth LCB should be preferable when the third ACB remains intact to preserve any native breast flap sensation.

Background: Financial key performance indicators are often used to evaluate performance. Understanding of key performance indicators can be crucial for career advancement and bargaining leverage in resource negotiations. This study aimed to identify the most important key performance indicators used in surgical funding requests and understand how to use these metrics in clinical practice. Methods: In two tertiary medical centers, funding requests for surgeon gap support (2019 to 2020) and equipment (2017 to 2019) within departments of surgery were reviewed. The requesting department, approval status, and amount allotted were recorded. In requests for gap support, projections for contribution margin, operating room volume, charges, collections, and relative value units were tracked. Projected contribution margin and cost savings were recorded for equipment funding requests. Results: There were 40 gap support and 24 equipment requests, and all were approved. Most gap support requests included collections (90.0 percent), charges (87.5 percent), operating room cases (80.0 percent), relative value units (77.5 percent), and hospital contribution margin (77.5 percent). The most represented departments were general surgery (37.5 percent), neurosurgery (22.5 percent), and plastic surgery (15.0 percent). The departments that submitted the most equipment requests were general surgery (28.0 percent) and neurosurgery (28.0 percent). Most requests included projections for contribution margin (95.8 percent) and cost savings (87.4 percent). Projected hospital contribution margin correlated with the amount of funds allotted for surgeon support (r = 0.409; p = 0.022). Conclusions: This multicenter study identified the importance of using key performance indicators for a successful financial outcome in funding requests. In addition, the authors demonstrate the need for surgeons to understand their own key performance indicators. Surgeons should advocate for increased transparency to better understand their financial contributions and performance.