Martinez‐Jorge, Jorys

AbstractBackgroundThe Goldilocks mastectomy procedure involves local contouring of completely autologous breast tissue created by preserving and de‐epithelializing the residual mastectomy flaps. The purpose of this study was to provide outcomes data for 96‐Goldilocks mastectomy procedures analyzing indications, complications, relevant comorbidities, and adjuvant cancer treatment impacting reconstructive and aesthetic outcomes.MethodsComprehensive review of every patient who underwent Goldilocks mastectomy from 2012 to 2018 included relevant medical and surgical comorbidities, as well as complication profiles. Aesthetic outcomes were also assessed in those with postoperative imaging available.ResultsA total of 53 patients (96 breasts) were included in this study. Bilateral cases consisted of 81.1% of the total cohort (n = 86 cases), and 18.9% (n = 10 cases) were unilateral procedures. Mean age at the time of reconstruction was 55.8 (33‐77) years. Mean body mass index (BMI) at the time of reconstruction was 33.7 (19.2‐54.6). The overall complication rate was 9.38% (seroma = 2, hematoma = 1, cellulitis = 2, wound dehiscence = 3, and operating room take back = 1).ConclusionsGoldilocks breast reconstruction is a safe, effective option in patients with higher than average BMI or excess local breast tissue, or in patients meeting these criteria preferring a single‐stage reconstruction. This study qualifies its use in patients with higher than average risk factors for more extensive reconstructive modalities.

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.

Background The purpose of this study is to describe our experience and outcomes in oncoplastic pelvic reconstruction for patients who underwent either vertical rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (VRAM) or omental flap following abdominoperineal resection (APR) at a single tertiary care institution. Methods All patients who underwent pelvic reconstruction following APR with either VRAM or omental flaps from January 1992 to January 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and relevant comorbidities including chemotherapy and radiation therapy data were collected and analyzed. In addition, margin status at the time of oncologic resection was analyzed. Flap-specific data were collected for each approach. Oncologic data collected included cancer type, stage at time of APR, and rate of tumor recurrence within the flap. Results A total of 562 patients were identified who underwent pelvic reconstruction with either VRAM or omental pedicle flaps. Of these, 274 (48.8%) underwent VRAM reconstruction and 288 (51.2%) underwent omental flap reconstruction. All margins were negative at time of cancer ablation surgery. Complications data included: seroma (VRAM = 2 [0.36%]; omentum = 32 [5.69%], p < 0.0001), wound dehiscence (VRAM = 31 [5.52%]; omentum = 17 [3.02%], p = 0.022), abscess (VRAM = 4 [0.71%]; omentum = 27 [4.8%], p < 0.0001), cellulitis (VRAM = 2 [0.36%]; omentum = 10 [1.78%], p = 0.025). Statistical comparison of tumor recurrence between these two reconstructive approaches showed a significantly higher recurrence rate in omental flaps compared with VRAM flaps (p = 0.000127). Conclusion The results of this study suggest a significantly higher tumor recurrence rate in omental flap pelvic reconstruction compared with VRAM flaps. This knowledge has the potential to influence surgical planning and flap selection in pelvic reconstruction.

Limb salvage in an irradiated patient with limited recipient vessels leaves few options for reconstruction. Cross-leg free flaps have been used to reconstruct defects that would otherwise lead to amputation in patients with no ipsilateral recipient vessels. We present the first documented case of a cross-leg free flap for limb salvage in a radiated bed after infection and tumour resection.

Background Lower extremity salvage following significant soft tissue loss can be complicated by lack of recipient vessel for free tissue transfer. We describe our experience in lower limb salvage for patients with no recipient vessels with the use of pedicle, free and cable bridge flaps. Methods A retrospective review from 1985 to 2017 of patients undergoing lower limb salvage using a contralateral pedicle cross leg (PCL) flaps, free cross leg (FCL) flaps, or free cable bridge (FCB) flaps was conducted. Demographics, etiology of the reconstruction, type of flap used, donor-site vessels, defect size, operating time, time of pedicle division, length of hospital stay, time to ambulation, and complications were analyzed. Results A total of 53 patients (48 males and 5 females) with an average age of 35 years (range, 29–38 years) were identified. The etiology for the reconstruction was trauma in 52 patients and oncological resection in 1 patient. There were 18 PCL, 25 FCL, and 10 FCB completed. The recipient vessels for all flaps were the posterior tibial artery and vein. The average operating room times for PCL, FCL, and FCB flaps were 4, 9, and 10 hours, respectively. The average length of hospital stay was 5 weeks and average time to ambulation was 4 weeks. The average follow-up time was 7.5 years (range, 3–12 years). Complications encountered were hematoma (six), prolonged pain (six), total flap loss (two), reoperation (five), and infection (four). Limb salvage rates were 96.2%. Conclusion When ipsilateral limb vessels are not available, and other reconstructive options have been exhausted, cross leg flaps can be a viable option for limb salvage in the setting of extensive defects.