Reece, Edward M.

Abstract The field of plastic surgery remains at the forefront of technological and surgical innovation. However, the promising applications of robotics in plastic surgery must be thoughtfully balanced with hospital finances and reimbursements. Robotic systems have been studied extensively across multiple surgical disciplines and across diverse health care systems. The results show that there may be equal or better patient outcomes than alternatives. In an era where fiscal responsibility in health care is a top priority, thoughtful budgeting and spending must be considered and revisited frequently to attain sustainable organizational models that ensure appropriate use of robotic technology.

Background: There is limited research on the impact of revisional surgery after breast reconstruction on patient experience and postoperative quality of life (QoL). Methods: Patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate implant-based or autologous free-flap breast reconstruction from 2008 to 2020 were reviewed. These patients were categorized by revisions (0–1, 2–3, and 4+) and surveyed on QoL metrics using BREAST-Q and Was It Worth It? (WIWI) questionnaires. BREAST-Q QoL, satisfaction, and WIWI metrics between revision groups were evaluated. Results: Among 252 patients, a total of 150 patients (60%) underwent zero to one revisions, 72 patients (28%) underwent two to three revisions, and 30 patients (12%) underwent four or more revisions. Median follow-up was 6 years (range, 1–11 years). BREAST-Q satisfaction among patients with four or more revisions was significantly lower ( P = 0.03), while core QoL domains (chest physical, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) did not significantly differ. Analysis of unplanned reoperations due to complications and breast satisfaction showed no significant difference in QoL scores between groups ( P = 0.08). Regarding WIWI QoL metrics, four or more revisions were associated with a higher rate of worse QoL ( P = 0.035) and worse overall experience ( P = 0.001). Most patients in all revision groups felt it was worthwhile to undergo breast reconstruction (86%), would choose breast reconstruction again (83%), and would recommend breast reconstruction to others (79%). Conclusions: Overall, a majority of patients undergoing revisions after breast reconstruction still have a worthwhile experience. Although reoperations after breast reconstruction do not significantly impact long-term BREAST-Q QoL domains, patients undergoing four or more revisions have significantly lower breast satisfaction, worse QoL, and a postoperative experience worse than expected.

Background: The fillet flap is a reliable flap for reconstruction of large deformities following oncologic resection. It provides healthy, nonradiated tissue for coverage with the secondary benefit of preserving other potential donor sites for reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective review of the medical records of eight patients who underwent fillet flap reconstruction from 2013 to 2021 at Mayo Clinic, Arizona, were analyzed. Results: Eight patients who underwent four hemipelvectomies, three forequarter amputations, and one below the knee amputation were identified. Patients’ ages ranged between 24 and 66 years. All indications for oncologic ablation were curative. Defect sizes ranged from 16 × 20 to 30 × 60 cm. Four pedicled flaps and four free fillet flaps were performed. Indication for free fillet flap was tumor invasion of local vascular structures. There was no flap loss in the pedicled group (follow-up ranged from 1 to 9 years), and one of four free fillet flaps had a successful long-term outcome (follow-up 36 months). Conclusions: Successful free fillet flap reconstruction in the setting of oncologic resection is a difficult task to achieve. Changes to the management of case 3F allowed for a successful transfer. Immediate elevation and anastomosis of the flap before oncologic resection, large caliber recipient vessels and isolation from the zone of injury, protection of the anastomosis, and delay in flap inset all contributed to flap survival. It is our belief that applying these general considerations in large oncologic resections with free fillet flap transfer may aid in successful flap transfer and improve its survival odds.