Harless, Christin

ABSTRACT Background Abdominal‐based free flaps are the mainstay in autologous breast reconstruction. Their safety and consistency in outcomes are well‐documented. When flap compromise occurs, operative salvage is the gold standard. However, when—and if—to place these patients on heparin infusions is unclear. The goal of this study was to investigate abdominal‐based free flap compromise and compare outcomes with and without heparin infusion. Materials and Methods This was a single‐institution, multiple‐surgeon, retrospective chart review of patients undergoing autologous, abdominal‐based free flap breast reconstruction who experienced anastomotic compromise within a 6‐year period. Treatment and outcomes data collected include flap salvage, hematoma, seroma, surgical site infection (SSI), transfusion requirement, and length of hospital stay. Results Fifty‐one flaps had evidence of compromise. A total of 31 (60.8%) patients were placed on heparin infusions after experiencing anastomotic compromise, compared to 20 who did not receive heparin infusion. Thirty‐five patients (68.6%) underwent deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps. Twenty‐six patients (51%) experienced venous congestion, 22 patients (43.1%) experienced arterial compromise, and three (5.9%) experienced both. Twenty‐eight patients (54.9%) received tissue plasminogen activator; in the heparin infusion group, 21 patients (67.7%) received tissue plasminogen activator. The total salvage rate of compromised flaps was 94.1% (48/51). There was no significant difference between heparin infusion and standard cares in length of hospital stay, length of drains in‐place, successful salvage (93.5% vs. 95%), hematoma (19.4% vs. 15%), fat necrosis, SSI, hospital readmission (19.4% vs. 15%), and return rates to the operating room (48.4% vs. 50%). However, there was a significantly higher transfusion rate in patients receiving heparin infusion (38.7% vs. 10%). Of the 25 flaps with evidence of thrombosis, 72% were placed on heparin infusions while 28% were not; there was no significant difference in salvage rate in this sub‐group. Conclusions This review of autologous breast reconstruction free flap compromise provides evidence of similar safety profiles, with similar salvage rates, when comparing salvage with and without heparin infusion; there is a higher transfusion requirement when treating with heparin infusion.

Background: In 2020, the American Board of Plastic Surgeons announced an update in the leave policy for plastic surgery trainees, extending personal leave to 12 weeks without delay in graduation. Simultaneously, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education announced their update in lactation policy. This study sought to understand the influence of the policy change on plastic surgery trainees’ goals for family planning and lactation. Methods: An online 32-question survey was developed to evaluate plastic surgery trainees’ perceptions of family planning and perceived program support in the United States. The survey was approved by the American Council of Academic Plastic Surgeons Research Committee and sent out to a total of 216 plastic surgery programs. Results: One hundred thirty plastic surgery trainees completed the survey. Most respondents were women, between the ages of 30 and 34 years, and married. Forty-five (34.6%) respondents or their partners had experienced pregnancy or live birth during their training. More than 70% did not feel that they had adequate time for leave. Female trainees faced more barriers than men, including having a partner in training, concern for their pregnancy, and burdening their co-residents during leave. The majority stated that their decision to apply to plastic surgery residency was influenced by program support for family planning compared with policy changes. Conclusions: This survey highlighted that the new policies benefit trainees who consider starting a family during training. Despite this, there are still challenges that need to be addressed to help foster a fair environment for trainees to work and have a family.

Abstract Background This study compared the ergonomics of surgeons during deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap surgery using either baseline equipment (loupes, headlights, and an operating microscope) or an exoscope. Plastic surgeons may be at high risk of musculoskeletal problems. Recent studies indicate that adopting an exoscope may significantly improve surgeon postures and ergonomics. Methods Postural exposures, using inertial measurement units at the neck, torso, and shoulders, were calculated in addition to the surgeons' subjective physical and cognitive workload. An ergonomic risk score on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) was calculated for each of the postures observed. Data from 23 bilateral DIEP flap surgeries (10 baseline and 13 exoscope) were collected. Results The neck and torso risk scores decreased significantly during abdominal flap harvest and chest dissection, while right shoulder risk scores increased during the abdominal flap harvest for exoscope DIEP flap procedures compared with. Exoscope anastomoses demonstrated higher neck, right shoulder, and left shoulder risk scores. The results from the survey for the “surgeon at abdomen” showed that the usage of exoscopes was associated with decreased performance and increased mental demand, temporal demand, and effort. However, the results from the “surgeon at chest” showed that the usage of exoscopes was associated with lower physical demand and fatigue, potentially due to differences in surgeon preference. Conclusion Our study revealed some objective evidence for the ergonomic benefits of exoscope; however, this is dependent on the tasks the surgeon is performing. Additionally, personal preferences may be an important factor to be considered in the ergonomic evaluation of the exoscope.

Background: Prepectoral implant-based reconstruction reemerged as a viable approach following recent advances in reconstructive techniques and technology. To achieve successful outcomes, careful patient selection is critical. Obesity increases the risk of complications and has been suggested as a relative contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients who underwent immediate two-stage implant-based reconstruction at the authors’ institution was performed. Only women having a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or greater were included. Patient demographics, operative details, and surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Results: One hundred ten patients (189 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 83 (147 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction were included. Complications were comparable between the two groups. Twelve devices (6.4 percent), including implants and tissue expanders, required explantation in the prepectoral group, and 12 devices (8.2 percent) required explantation in the subpectoral group (p =0.522). Final implant-based reconstruction was achieved in 180 breasts (95.2 percent) in the prepectoral group and 141 breasts (95.9 percent) in the subpectoral group. Regardless of type of reconstruction (prepectoral or subpectoral), for each point increase in body mass index, the odds of complications and device explantation increased by 3.4 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively; and the optimal cutoff to predict higher complications and explantation rates was a body mass index of 34.8 kg/m2 and 34.1 kg/m2, respectively. Conclusions: Obesity increases complications and failure rates in a positive correlation; however, complications and final reconstruction rates are comparable between the prepectoral and subpectoral groups. The authors believe that obesity should not be a contraindication for prepectoral breast reconstruction but that care should be taken in patients with a body mass index above 35 kg/m2. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Background and objectives: Differences in patient anatomy and physiology exist between young and older patients undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast cancer has been described as being more aggressive, more likely to receive radiation, contralateral mastectomy, as well as bilateral reconstruction in young patients. Our purpose is to report long-term experience on two-staged implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) in young females, with complication sub-analysis based on obesity and adjuvant radiation. Materials and Methods: Retrospective chart review of all consecutive young patients who underwent two-staged IBR at our institution, between 2000 and 2016, was performed. Patients between 15 and 40 years old with least 1-year follow-up were included. Univariate logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created. Results: Overall 594 breasts met our inclusion criteria. The mean age was 34 years, and the median follow-up was 29.6 months. Final IBR was achieved in 98% of breasts. Overall, 12% of breasts had complications, leading to explantations of 5% of the devices. Adjuvant radiation was followed by higher rates of total device explantations (p = 0.003), while obese patients had higher rates of total complications (p < 0.001). For each point increase in BMI, the odds of developing complications increased 8.1% (p < 0.001); the cutoff BMI to predict higher complications was 24.81 kg/m2. Conclusions: This population demonstrates high successful IBR completion and low explantation rates. These data suggest that obese women and those with planned adjuvant radiation deserve special counseling about their higher risk of complications.

Background: Two-staged implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most common breast reconstructive modality. Recently, technological and surgical advances have encouraged surgeons to revisit prepectoral IBR. Data comparing prepectoral against subpectoral IBR in women under the age of 40 are lacking. Methods: Retrospective chart review of patients under the age of 40 years old, who underwent immediate 2-staged IBR at our institution, was performed. Patient’s demographics, clinical characteristics, operative details, and early surgical outcomes of prepectoral and subpectoral reconstruction were compared. Data with values of P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results: Between 2012 and 2016, 100 patients (187 breasts) who underwent prepectoral and 69 patients (124 breasts) who underwent subpectoral IBR were included. Median follow-up was 17.9 and 17.5 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Total number of complications including both stages of reconstruction was 20 (10.7%) and 19 (15.3%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). Specific complications, including hematoma, seroma, skin flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, and breast infections, were not significantly different among groups. Ten (5.4%) devices, including implants and tissue expander, required explantation in the prepectoral group and 8 (6.5%) in the subpectoral group (P = 0.683). Explantation was most commonly due to infection (n = 14), and all of them occurred during the first stage (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Early complications and implant explantation rates are comparable among prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction in women under 40 years old. Based on these results, we believe that prepectoral IBR is a safe, reliable, and promising reconstructive option.

Summary: Advances in microsurgical instruments and techniques have allowed for introduction of lymphaticovenous anastomosis as a potential surgical treatment for patients with upper and lower extremity lymphedema. This article reviews the approach to lymphaticovenous anastomosis patient selection and technical modifications that improve the ease and efficiency of the procedure.