Rebecca, Alanna M.

Background Same-day discharge after mastectomy is a recently described treatment approach. Limited data exist investigating whether same-day discharge can be successfully implemented in patients undergoing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Methods Patients having mastectomy with IBR from 2013 to 2019 were reviewed. Enhanced recovery with same-day discharge was implemented in 2017. Patient characteristics, oncologic treatments, surgical techniques, and 90-day postoperative complications and reoperations were analyzed comparing enhanced recovery patients with historical controls. Results A total of 363 patients underwent nipple-sparing (214, 59%) or skin-sparing (149, 41%) mastectomy with 1-stage (270, 74%) or tissue expander (93, 26%) IBR. Enhanced recovery was used for 151 patients, with 79 of these patients (52%) discharged same-day. Overall, enhanced recovery patients experienced a significantly lower rate of 90-day complications (21% vs 41%, P < 0.001 ), including hematoma (3% vs 11%, P = 0.002), mastectomy flap necrosis (7% vs 15%, P = 0.02), seroma (1% vs 9%, P < 0.001), and wound breakdown (3% vs 9%, P = 0.05). Postoperative complication rates did not significantly differ among enhanced recovery patients discharged same day. Postoperative admissions significantly decreased after enhanced recovery implementation (100% to 48%, P < 0.001), and admitted enhanced recovery patients experienced a lower length of stay (1.2 vs 1.8, P < 0.001 ). Enhanced recovery patients experienced a lower incidence of ≥1 unplanned reoperation (22% vs 33%, P = 0.01); overall average unplanned and total reoperations did not significantly differ between groups. Conclusions In conjunction with enhanced recovery practices, same-day discharge after mastectomy with IBR is a safe and feasible treatment approach.

AbstractPyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a diagnosis of exclusion worsened by surgical debridement. This report presents two atypical manifestations of PG in the reconstructed breast, whereby the disease is only confined to the irradiated chest wall tissue bed, sparing the abdominal donor sites and the contralateral reconstructed breast.

Background The purpose of this study is to evaluate how prior breast augmentation impacts rates of complications and risk for reoperation after mastectomy with concurrent breast reconstruction. Methods Patients undergoing nipple-sparing, skin-sparing, or simple mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction from 2008 to 2018 were identified in a prospective database. Postoperative complications and reoperations were then analyzed comparing patients with prior augmentation to patients without history of previous breast surgery. Results A total of 468 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 4 years. Of these, 72 had prior augmentation mammoplasty. These patients underwent nipple-sparing (52, 72%), skin-sparing (15, 21%), or simple (5, 7%) mastectomy with immediate direct-to-implant (46, 61%) or tissue expander (26, 35%) reconstruction. On univariate analysis, this cohort had a lower body mass index (23.3 vs 25.3, P = 0.003), a higher rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy (72% vs 54%, P = 0.01), and a higher prevalence of stage I disease (44% vs 33%, P = 0.04). Differences in age, comorbidities, reconstructive techniques, tumor size, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies were not significant. Overall complication rate between patients with or without prior augmentation did not significantly differ (51% vs 50%, P = 0.83); no significant differences in rates of surgical site infection, hematoma, mastectomy skin flap/wound necrosis, nipple complications, implant loss, or capsular contracture were found. Analysis of reoperations between patients with and without prior augmentation revealed no significant differences in average number of subsequent planned, unplanned, or total reoperations. On multivariate analysis, prior breast augmentation was found to be associated with significantly increased risk for undergoing ≥1 unplanned reoperation (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–4.05, P = 0.005). Conclusions Prior augmentation mammoplasty does not significantly affect rates of postoperative complications after mastectomy with concurrent reconstruction. Although prior augmentation does not affect number of subsequent reoperations on average, it does increase the risk of experiencing 1 or more unplanned reoperation after mastectomy with reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: As multidisciplinary treatment modalities for rectal cancer continue to evolve, neoadjuvant chemoradiation then surgical resection is a common approach. Robotic-assisted abdominoperineal resection is becoming more prevalent in part because of better visualization and instrument mobility within the pelvis. After abdominoperineal resection, postoperative perineal wound complications remain a significant risk. Pelvic reconstruction lowers this risk, and a pedicled rectus abdominis muscle flap is frequently used to achieve this. Traditional flap harvest requires laparotomy, resulting in violation of both rectus sheaths and a large midline scar. Robotic harvest of the rectus abdominis muscle for pelvic reconstruction after abdominoperineal resection is a novel approach with foreseeable benefits. TECHNIQUE: After completion of abdominoperineal resection, 2 additional trocars are inserted in the lateral abdomen, and the robot is reoriented toward the posterior abdominal wall. The peritoneum and posterior rectus sheath are incised, and dissection is carried superiorly and inferiorly in a sagittal plane to reveal the rectus abdominis muscle. The muscle body is separated from the anterior rectus sheath. Once the inferior epigastric artery is identified, the superior pole of the muscle is transected. Continued lateral dissection ensures flap mobility for placement within the pelvis. After obtaining proper reach, the robot is undocked, and the flap is sutured in place through the perineal defect. RESULTS: After trocar placement and robot repositioning, both the colorectal and plastic surgeons trade places at the console. Robotic flap harvest precludes the need for laparotomy. The anterior rectus sheath remains unviolated and the patient avoids an additional midline scar. The aforementioned benefits of robot-assisted abdominoperineal resection, namely increased visualization and maneuverability, were also found applicable when robotically harvesting this flap. CONCLUSIONS: This technique exemplifies an additional minimally invasive technique for patients pursuing abdominoperineal resection. With knowledge of this novel approach, surgeons can better tailor their operations to benefit the patient.