Nguyen, Minh-Doan T.

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 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 Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) accounts for 70% of postmastectomy reconstructions in the United States. Improving the quality of surgical care in IBR patients through accurate measurements of outcomes is necessary. The purpose of this study is to compare the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data from our institution to our complete institutional health records database. Methods Data were collected and recorded for all patients undergoing IBR at our institution from 2015 to 2017. The data were completely identified and compared with our institutional NSQIP database for demographics and complications. Results The electronic health records data search identified 768 IBR patients in 3 years and NSQIP reported on 229 (30%) patients. Demographics were reported similarly among the 2 databases. Rates of tissue expander/implant infections (5.9% vs 1.8%; P = 0.003) and wound dehiscence (3.5% vs 0.4%; P = 0.003) were not reported similarly between our database and NSQIP. However, the rates of hematoma (2.7% vs 1.8%) and skin flap necrosis (2.5% vs 1.8%) were comparable between the two databases. In our database, 43% of all complications presented after 30 days of surgery, beyond NSQIP's capture period. Conclusions Databases built on partial sampling, such as the NSQIP, may be useful for demographic analyses, but fall short of providing data for complications after IBR, such as infections and wound dehiscence. These results highlight the utility and importance of complete databases. National comparisons of clinical outcomes for IBR should be interpreted with caution when using partial databases.

Background Single-stage direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction can offer several potential benefits. Subpectoral DTI reconstruction can present with animation deformity and pectoralis muscle spasm. To potentially avoid these complications, surgeons have attempted prepectoral placement for DTI; however, the benefits of this approach are mostly unknown. We evaluated the outcomes of DTI between prepectoral and subpectoral placement. Methods This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent immediate DTI breast reconstruction (prepectoral vs subpectoral) between 2011 and 2018. Demographics, clinical characteristics, complications, and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were compared. Results Thirty-three patients (55 breasts) underwent prepectoral DTI, and 42 patients (69 breasts) underwent subpectoral DTI. Demographics were similar among groups. The number of breasts with preoperative ptosis lower than grade 2 was not significantly different between groups (29.1% vs 26.1%; P = 0.699). Median follow-up was 20.3 and 21 months in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Average mastectomy weight was 300 g (180–425 g) and 355 g (203–500 g). Average implant size was 410 cc (330–465 cc) and 425 cc (315–534 cc) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively. Alloderm was used in all reconstructions. Total numbers of complications were 4 (7.2%) and 8 (11.6%) in the prepectoral and subpectoral groups, respectively (P = 0.227). BREAST-Q demonstrated mean patient satisfaction was high and similar among groups (75 and 73.9, P = 0.211). Conclusions Based on these results, we believe prepectoral DTI is safe, reliable, and a promising reconstructive option for selected patients, with equivalent results to other reconstructive options. Our present treatment recommendations are for patients who wish to maintain the same breast size and have minimal or no breast ptosis.

Abstract Objective Implant-based breast reconstruction after mastectomy remains the most common reconstructive modality worldwide. Infection is a frequent complication that negatively affects the reconstructive outcome and increases health-care costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography in identifying fluid collections in patients with breast implant infection. Methods After receiving institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed on patients who presented with breast implant infection after breast reconstruction, during the period 2009–2017. To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound (US) in detecting fluid collections, only patients with US evaluation and surgery during the same admission were included. Results In total, 64 patients with 64 infected implants met the inclusion criteria. Infected devices included 44 (69%) tissue expanders, and 20 (31%) implants, of which 40 (62%) were placed in the subpectoral and 24 (38%) prepectoral positions. Periprosthetic fluid was identified by US preoperatively in 45 (70%) of the patients, and a fluid collection was found in 61 (95%) of the patients during surgery. Sensitivity and specificity of US were 74% and 100%, respectively. Inaccurate US results were more likely in patients with silicone implants than patients with saline expander implants. Conclusion Caution should be exercised in interpreting negative US findings in patients with silicone implants in the setting of infection. Other imaging modalities should be explored if US results are negative in cases with high clinical suspicion.

Background: Breast cancer diagnosis and treatment affect quality of life and stress and are associated with fatigue. Meditation interventions are effective strategies for patients with breast cancer but are often limited by poor access, high cost, substantial time commitment, and poor adherence. In this feasibility study, we investigated the use of a portable, wearable, electroencephalographic device for guided meditation practices by breast cancer patients during the period from breast cancer diagnosis until 3 months after surgical treatment. Methods: We enrolled women (age = 20-75 years) who had received a recent diagnosis of breast cancer and planned to undergo surgical treatment. Participants were randomly assigned to perform guided meditation with the device (intervention group) or receive CD-based stress-reduction education (control group). Surveys were used to measure stress, quality of life, and fatigue at baseline, within 4 days before surgery, up to 14 days after surgery, and at 3 months after surgery. Results: In the intervention group, 15 of 17 participants (88.2%) completed the study; in the control group, 13 of 13 participants completed the study (100%). Participants in both groups had less fatigue and stress and improved quality of life at 2 weeks and 3 months after surgery compared with baseline, but there were no significant intergroup differences at any time point. Conclusion: The use of this wearable electroencephalographic device for meditation is a feasible strategy for patients with breast cancer.

Background: Surgical-site infection after implant-based breast reconstruction adversely affects surgical outcomes and increases health care costs. This 11-year case-control study examines risk factors specific for surgical-site infection after immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction. Methods: The authors performed a retrospective review to identify all consecutive patients with breast implant infections between 2006 and 2016. Patients who developed surgical-site infection after immediate tissue expander/implant-based breast reconstruction were included. Surgical-site infection was defined using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria; specifically, infections requiring hospital admission, intravenous antibiotics, or surgical intervention were included. The authors matched a control patient to each infection case by patient age and date of surgery. Patient demographics, medical comorbidities, and perioperative surgical variables were examined. Univariate and multivariable conditional logistic regression models were constructed. Results: A total of 270 breasts in 252 patients were evaluated. On multivariate analysis, patients with a higher body mass index (OR, 1.1 per 1 body mass index point increase; 95 percent CI, 1.0 to 1.2; p = 0.02), hypertension (OR, 6.5; 95 percent CI, 1.9 to 22.3; p = 0.002), neoadjuvant chemotherapy (OR, 2.6; 95 percent CI, 1.0 to 6.3; p = 0.04), axillary lymph node dissection (OR, 7.1; 95 percent CI, 1.7 to 29.2; p = 0.006), seroma formation (OR, 15.34; 95 percent CI, 3.7 to 62.5; p = 0.0001), and wound healing complications (OR, 23.91; 95 percent CI, 6.1 to 93.4; p < 0.0001) were significantly associated with surgical-site infection. Conclusions: Women with obesity, women with hypertension, and those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at increased risk of surgical-site infection. Further risks are also associated with postoperative seroma and wound complications. This may help patient selection and counseling, adjusted based on risk factors regarding complications of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.