Bustos, S S

Background Lymphedema treatment is an ongoing challenge. It impacts quality of life due to pain, loss of range of motion of the extremity, and repeated episodes of cellulitis. Different modalities have been used to evaluate lymphedema; some are more error-prone and some are more invasive. However, these measurements are poorly standardized, and intrarater and interrater reliabilities are difficult to achieve. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of ultrasound vibroelastography for assessing patients with extremity lymphedema via measuring shear wave speeds of subcutaneous tissues. Methods Patients with clinical and lymphoscintigraphic diagnosis of secondary lymphedema in the extremities without prior surgical treatment were included. A 0.1-s harmonic vibration was generated at three frequencies (100, 150, and 200 Hz) by the indenter of a handheld shaker on the skin. An ultrasound probe was used for noninvasively capturing of wave propagation in the subcutaneous tissue. Wave speeds were measured in the subcutaneous tissues of both the control and affected extremities. Results A total of 11 female patients with secondary lymphedema in the extremities were enrolled in this study. The magnitudes of the wave speeds of the region of interest in the subcutaneous tissue at lymphedema sites in the upper extremity (3.9 ± 0.17 m/s, 5.96 ± 0.67 m/s, and 7.41 ± 1.09 m/s) were statistically higher than those of the control sites (2.1 ± 0.27 m/s, 2.93 ± 0.57 m/s, and 3.56 ± 0.76 m/s) at 100, 150, and 200 Hz (P < 0.05), and at 100 and 200 Hz (P < 0.05) between lymphedema (4.33 ± 0.35 m/s, 4.17 ± 1.00 m/s, and 4.56 ± 0.37 m/s) and controls sites (2.48 ± 0.43 m/s, 2.77 ± 0.55 m/s, and 3.06 ± 0.29 m/s) in the lower extremity. Conclusions These preliminary data suggest that ultrasound vibroelastography may be useful in the evaluation of secondary lymphedema and can be a valuable tool to noninvasively track treatment progress.

Background Vascularized gastroepiploic lymph node flaps have become a popular option to treat patients with extremity lymphedema. Overall, 2 surgical approaches to harvest this flap have been described: laparoscopic and open. In this study, we analyzed complications, harvesting time, and patient satisfaction scores, comparing these 2 techniques. Methods Between 2012– and 2018, all patients with extremity lymphedema and candidates for the gastroepiploic flap harvest were included. Two groups were compared: open and laparoscopic approaches. Flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, return of gastrointestinal motility, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction scores were assessed. Results A total of 177 patients were included, of which 126 underwent laparoscopic harvest and 51 patients underwent open approach. Only 2 patients in the laparoscopic group had prior abdominal surgery not related to cancer treatment compared with 7 patients in the open approach (P < 0.01). Average surgical completion time for the laparoscopic versus open approach was 136 and 102 minutes, respectively (P < 0.02). Postoperative complications for the laparoscopic versus open were as follows: 1 patient developed pancreatitis and 2 developed ileus in the laparoscopic approach, whereas 3 patients developed ileus, 1 developed small bowel obstruction, 2 developed superficial site infection, and 1 developed minor wound dehiscence in the open approach. No patient required further surgical intervention. Average return of gastrointestinal function was 1 day (laparoscopic) and 2 days (open), respectively. On a pain scale, pain scores at postoperative day 1 and upon discharge were on average 3 versus 7 and 2 versus 5, respectively (P < 0.05). Lengths of hospital stay were on average 2 days in the laparoscopic group and 5 days in the open group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores based on pain and scars were significantly better in the laparoscopic group versus open group (P < 0.03). Conclusions These data support that a minimal invasive approach is ideal and efficient when resources are available. In addition, the lower complication rate and high patient satisfaction scores give promising feedback to continue offering this technique.

Abstract Background The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is the most common perforator flap for microsurgical breast reconstruction. Contrary to the conventional open approach, robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest intends to preserve ARS integrity, thereby reducing the morbidity. We assessed the feasibility and compared performance outcomes of a robotic, cadaveric training model for DIEP flap harvest using two approaches: transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) and totally extraperitoneal (TEP). Methods A robotics system (da Vinci Xi) was applied in conjunction with a cadaveric training model. Ports were placed in the abdominal wall to triangulate each DIEP flap. Surgical time and technical characteristics were recorded. Values were analyzed and compared. Results Eight female cadavers (16 hemi-DIEP flaps) were dissected: 50% TAPP and 50% TEP approaches. Mean harvest time was 56 minutes (range: 48–74 minutes) and 65 minutes (range: 60–83 minutes) for TAPP versus TEP groups, respectively (p < 0.05). Mean pedicle dissection time was 36 minutes (range: 25–40 minutes) and 39 minutes (range: 30–42 minutes) for TAPP versus TEP groups, respectively (p > 0.05). Intra-abdominal contents were manipulated twice on average in the TAPP group versus 0 times in the TEP group (p < 0.05). One TAPP case had an injury to the bowel, and one TEP case was converted to conventional open due to pneumoperitoneum. Conclusion Robotic-assisted DIEP flap harvest represents a technological enhancement for advanced regenerative plastic surgery. Our model demonstrated both TAPP and TEP are feasible, with TEP less invasive, preserving the posterior rectus sheath, and decreasing complication risks. However, there is a steeper and longer learning curve for TEP.

Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes. Methods: This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed. Results: Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non–acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors’ institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement. Conclusions: With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Lymphedema is a condition in which protein-rich fluid accumulates in the tissue causing impaired limb function from swelling and stiffness. Understanding the mechanical properties of soft tissue in lymphedematous limbs is important in clinical diagnosis. We recently developed an ultrasound surface wave elastography (USWE) technique for measuring the shear wave speed of tissue. The aim of this study is to evaluate lymphedematous limb use USWE. A total of 11 patients with lymphedema were included. Both normal and affected extremities were measured. A 0.1-s harmonic vibration was generated by the indenter of the handheld shaker on the limb. Ultrasound probe was used for detecting the tissue motion. Shear wave speed of the tissue was measured using 2-D processing window technique. A region of interest was selected to measure superficial and deep fat tissues. The obtained results showed that the magnitudes of the wave speeds of both the superficial and deep fat tissue at lymphedema sites were statistically higher than those of the control sites, respectively. This suggests that USWE may be useful in assessing correlation between tissue stiffness and lymphedema and would enable physicians to monitor disease severity.

AbstractBackgroundVascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) is an emerging surgical treatment for lymphedema. However, literature‐comparing outcomes of upper limb lymphedema (ULL) and lower limb lymphedema (LLL) is limited. Hence, the aim of this study is to compare the long‐term clinical outcomes on ULL versus LLL in patients treated with VLNT.MethodsA retrospective study retrieving data from patients with International Society of Lymphology (ISL) stages II–III who underwent different VLNTs from July 2010 to July 2016 in our institution was performed. Demographics preoperatively, and clinical data (limb circumference, infectious episodes, lymphoscintigraphic studies) preoperatively and postoperatively were recorded. Clinical outcomes by extremity were also analyzed.ResultsA total of 83 patients with lymphedema (ULL: n = 30, LLL: n = 53) were included. Mean follow‐up time was 32.8 months (range 24–49 months). Mean circumference reduction was higher in patients with ULL compared to with LLL (28.6 ± 8.6 vs. 22.3 ± 10.1, p < .001), and for patients with secondary lymphedema (24.8 ± 9.6, p < .001) than for patients with primary lymphedema (18.9 ± 14, p > .05). Infectious episodes per year preoperative and postoperative showed that LLL patients had higher reduction on infection rate compared with ULL patients (2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 1.9 ± 1.2, p < .001).ConclusionVLNT is a promising surgical treatment option for patients with lymphedema. This study suggests that VLNT may have a more beneficial outcome in patients with ULL and with secondary lymphedema.