Tran, Nho V.

Background: Presentation of research at scientific conferences provides an opportunity for researchers to disseminate their work and gain peer feedback. However, much of the presented work is never published in peer-reviewed journals. The authors analyzed the conversion rate of abstracts presented at three national plastic surgery meetings. Methods: Abstracts presented at the American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS), the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), and the Plastic Surgery Research Council (PSRC) annual meetings in 2014 and 2015 were identified to analyze the rates of successful conversion into full-text publications. Meeting administrators were contacted to obtain the respective acceptance rates of submitted abstracts. Results: A total of 1174 abstracts were analyzed. The overall conversion rate was 65 percent. The AAPS meeting had the highest conversion rate (73 percent), followed by the PSRC (66 percent) and the ASPS (61 percent). Conversely, the AAPS meeting had a lower acceptance rate (28 percent) compared with the ASPS (42 percent) and PSRC (49 percent) meetings. The conversion rate was significantly higher for abstracts from native English-speaking countries, whereas no significant differences were noted between oral and poster presentations. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the highest percentage of published manuscripts (34 percent). Abstracts presented at the PSRC meeting had the highest mean impact factor for the journal of publication. First authors changed in 31 percent and last authors changed in 18 percent of publications. The overall median time to publication from the date of presentation was 13 months. Conclusions: Almost two-thirds of abstracts presented at AAPS, ASPS, and PSRC meetings successfully converted into full-text publications. Plastic surgery departments/divisions should follow unpublished work in their institutions to benefit both patients and the scientific community.

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.

AbstractBackgroundCitation skew refers to the unequal distribution of citations to articles published in a particular journal.ObjectivesWe aimed to assess whether citation skew exists within plastic surgery journals and to determine whether the journal impact factor (JIF) is an accurate indicator of the citation rates of individual articles.MethodsWe used Journal Citation Reports to identify all journals within the field of plastic and reconstructive surgery. The number of citations in 2018 for all individual articles published in 2016 and 2017 was abstracted.ResultsThirty-three plastic surgery journals were identified, publishing 9823 articles. The citation distribution showed right skew, with the majority of articles having either 0 or 1 citation (40% and 25%, respectively). A total of 3374 (34%) articles achieved citation rates similar to or higher than their journal’s IF, whereas 66% of articles failed to achieve a citation rate equal to the JIF. Review articles achieved higher citation rates (median, 2) than original articles (median, 1) (P < 0.0001). Overall, 50% of articles contributed to 93.7% of citations and 12.6% of articles contributed to 50% of citations. A weak positive correlation was found between the number of citations and the JIF (r = 0.327, P < 0.0001).ConclusionsCitation skew exists within plastic surgery journals as in other fields of biomedical science. Most articles did not achieve citation rates equal to the JIF with a small percentage of articles having a disproportionate influence on citations and the JIF. Therefore, the JIF should not be used to assess the quality and impact of individual scientific work.

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.

Abstract Background Abdominoperineal resection (APR), which involves resection of the rectum, anal canal, and perianal skin, results in a large dead space in the pelvis, devascularized tissues, and high bacterial loads. This predisposes to wound complications, especially in the setting of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Additional sacral resection further compounds these effects. We aimed to assess perineal wound outcomes and complications in patients who underwent flap reconstruction for APR with sacrectomy (APRS) at our institution. Methods We reviewed the charts of all patients who underwent flap reconstruction for APRS over a 20-year period (1999–2018). Medical comorbidities, details of the surgical procedure, and major and minor wound complications were recorded and analyzed. Results Forty-six patients underwent flap reconstruction following APRS—28 (60%) for colorectal cancer, 8 (17%) for sacral chordoma, and 10 diagnosed with other malignant histologies. Rectus abdominis myocutaneous (RAM) flap reconstruction was used in 42 patients (91%). The median time to the first major perineal complication was 111 days (interquartile range: 22–660 days). Half of our cohort (n = 23) experienced a major perineal complication. No significant differences were found in major or minor perineal or abdominal wall complications between RAM flap and other flaps. APR with high sacrectomy was performed in 27 patients (59%) and was associated with significantly increased full-thickness dehiscence in the perineal region when compared with APR with low sacrectomy, 33 versus 0%, respectively (p = 0.0076). Complete flap loss occurred in one patient. Conclusion The RAM flap was the workhorse flap for pelvic reconstruction following APRS in our cohort. Wound complications are common following APRS. High sacrectomy is associated with higher incidence of complications compared with low sacrectomy. Optimal surgical planning and patient counseling is fundamental to improve current surgical outcomes.

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.