Nguyen, Minh-Doan

Abstract Background This study compared the ergonomics of surgeons during deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap surgery using either baseline equipment (loupes, headlights, and an operating microscope) or an exoscope. Plastic surgeons may be at high risk of musculoskeletal problems. Recent studies indicate that adopting an exoscope may significantly improve surgeon postures and ergonomics. Methods Postural exposures, using inertial measurement units at the neck, torso, and shoulders, were calculated in addition to the surgeons' subjective physical and cognitive workload. An ergonomic risk score on a scale of 1 (lowest) to 4 (highest) was calculated for each of the postures observed. Data from 23 bilateral DIEP flap surgeries (10 baseline and 13 exoscope) were collected. Results The neck and torso risk scores decreased significantly during abdominal flap harvest and chest dissection, while right shoulder risk scores increased during the abdominal flap harvest for exoscope DIEP flap procedures compared with. Exoscope anastomoses demonstrated higher neck, right shoulder, and left shoulder risk scores. The results from the survey for the “surgeon at abdomen” showed that the usage of exoscopes was associated with decreased performance and increased mental demand, temporal demand, and effort. However, the results from the “surgeon at chest” showed that the usage of exoscopes was associated with lower physical demand and fatigue, potentially due to differences in surgeon preference. Conclusion Our study revealed some objective evidence for the ergonomic benefits of exoscope; however, this is dependent on the tasks the surgeon is performing. Additionally, personal preferences may be an important factor to be considered in the ergonomic evaluation of the exoscope.

Background: Obesity is a risk factor for complications in breast reconstruction. Thus, implant-based immediate breast reconstruction in obese women may be controversial. The authors analyzed obese patients who underwent skin-sparing mastectomy using Wise-pattern incisions (Goldilocks procedure) and compared outcomes between two groups: Goldilocks with immediate breast reconstruction and Goldilocks only. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of patients with a body mass index of 30 kg/m2 or higher who underwent the Goldilocks procedure at the Mayo Clinic Health System from 2012 to 2019. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. Minor complications (partial-thickness wound dehiscence or flap necrosis, or tissue expander/implant malposition) and major complications (full-thickness wound dehiscence or flap necrosis, capsular contracture, tissue expander/implant explantation, or unplanned reoperation or readmission) were compared between groups. Patient-reported outcomes using BREAST-Q questionnaires were also assessed. Results: One hundred five patients (181 breasts) were included. Mean ± SEM age and body mass index were 57.1 ± 10.4 years and 37.9 ± 5.8 kg/m2 for the Goldilocks-only group and 51.5 ± 1.1 years and 35.5 ± 0.4 kg/m2 for the Goldilocks with immediate breast reconstruction group, respectively. Median follow-up time was 15.1 months (interquartile range, 10.0 to 28.6 months). Overall, 96 breasts underwent the Goldilocks-only procedure and 85 Goldilocks with immediate breast reconstruction. Multivariable analyses revealed a higher rate of minor complications (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.83; 95 percent CI, 1.22 to 7.02) and major complications (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.26; 95 percent CI, 1.25 to 4.24) in the Goldilocks with immediate breast reconstruction group compared with the Goldilocks-only group, at any given time. Patient satisfaction was not statistically different between groups. Conclusions: The Goldilocks procedure is a feasible breast reconstructive option in obese patients; however, when it is performed with immediate breast reconstruction, it is associated with higher rates of complications. For patients with a body mass index of 40 kg/m2 or greater, the authors recommend the Goldilocks-only procedure or delayed reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

We present the robotic harvest of a pedicled omentum flap for reconstruction of a near-total anterior chest wall defect. The patient was a 68-year-old woman with recurrent secondary chest wall angiosarcoma after previous mastectomy and radiation therapy. She underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation, followed by wide radical chest wall resection with a final defect size of 15×35 cm. A one-stage reconstruction was performed with an omentum flap harvested by robotic technique and split-thickness skin grafts from thigh donor sites. The patient healed with minimal complications. Our case supports more widespread application of robotics in plastic and reconstructive surgery.

Background: Subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction is often associated with muscle spasms, pain, and discomfort during tissue expansion. In this study, we hypothesized that an intraoperative injection of botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) in the pectoralis major muscle reduces the pain associated with tissue expansion and improves women’s physical well-being. Methods: Between May 2012 and May 2017, women undergoing immediate subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction were randomized to administer 100 units of BTX-A or a placebo injection. A numeric pain intensity scale and the physical well-being scale of the BREAST-Q: Reconstruction Module were used to test our hypothesis. Data on postoperative oral narcotic consumption were not collected. Results: Of the 131 women included in the analysis, 48% were randomized to placebo and 52% to BTX-A. The preoperative median pain intensity score was 0 [interquartile range (IQR), 0–1], and the median preoperative BREAST-Q score was 91 (IQR, 81–100). The median slopes for the change in pain intensity scores from baseline throughout tissue expansion for those randomized to placebo and BTX-A were −0.01 (IQR, −0.02 to 0.00) and −0.01 (IQR, −0.02 to 0.00), respectively (P = 0.55). The median slopes for the change in BREAST-Q scores from baseline throughout tissue expansion for those randomized to placebo and BTX-A were 0.04 (IQR, −0.17 to 0.14) and 0.02 (IQR, −0.06 to 0.13), respectively (P = 0.89). Conclusion: In this study, we found that an intraoperative intramuscular injection of 100 units of BTX-A in the pectoralis major muscle did not reduce postoperative pain and patient-reported physical well-being when compared with placebo.

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 and objectives: Differences in patient anatomy and physiology exist between young and older patients undergoing breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Breast cancer has been described as being more aggressive, more likely to receive radiation, contralateral mastectomy, as well as bilateral reconstruction in young patients. Our purpose is to report long-term experience on two-staged implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) in young females, with complication sub-analysis based on obesity and adjuvant radiation. Materials and Methods: Retrospective chart review of all consecutive young patients who underwent two-staged IBR at our institution, between 2000 and 2016, was performed. Patients between 15 and 40 years old with least 1-year follow-up were included. Univariate logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created. Results: Overall 594 breasts met our inclusion criteria. The mean age was 34 years, and the median follow-up was 29.6 months. Final IBR was achieved in 98% of breasts. Overall, 12% of breasts had complications, leading to explantations of 5% of the devices. Adjuvant radiation was followed by higher rates of total device explantations (p = 0.003), while obese patients had higher rates of total complications (p < 0.001). For each point increase in BMI, the odds of developing complications increased 8.1% (p < 0.001); the cutoff BMI to predict higher complications was 24.81 kg/m2. Conclusions: This population demonstrates high successful IBR completion and low explantation rates. These data suggest that obese women and those with planned adjuvant radiation deserve special counseling about their higher risk of complications.

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.