Citations

Background: Many insurance companies in the United States rely on the Schnur sliding scale to predict resection weights to determine medical necessity for breast reduction surgery. Accurate methods to predict resection weights are needed to avoid insurance denials. The authors compared the accuracy of formulas such as the Schnur, Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales in predicting resection weights, and assessed whether they influence insurance coverage decision. Methods: A retrospective review of bilateral reduction mammaplasty procedures from June of 2017 to June of 2019 was performed at the Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Oncoplastic reduction operations were excluded. The accuracy of each formula-based estimate was evaluated with linear regression analysis. Results: One hundred fifty-four patients (308 breasts) were reviewed. The Schnur scale had low correlation with actual resection weight (r 2 = 0.381; b1 = 1.153; p < 0.001). The Appel scale was the most accurate (r 2 = 0.642; b1 = 1.01; p < 0.001), followed by the Descamps (r 2 = 0.572, b1 = 0.934, p < 0.001) and Galveston (r 2 = 0.672; b1 = 0.654; p < 0.001) scales. The Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales were more accurate for resection weights of 500 g or greater, body mass index greater than 30 kg/m², and patients younger than 50 years. For resection weights of 500 g or greater, the median difference between the estimated and actual resection weight for the Schnur, Appel, Descamps, and Galveston scales was −211.4 ± 272.3, −17.5 ± 272.3, −9.6 ± 229.5, and −99.2 ± 238.5 g, respectively. No scale was accurate for resection weights less than 500 g. Insurance reimbursement was denied in 15.56 percent of patients; of these, 23 percent had resection weights less than 500 g. The Schnur scale overestimated the resection weights in 28.9 percent of patients. Conclusions: The Schnur scale is a poor predictor of breast resection weight. The Appel scale is the most accurate estimator, especially in the young and obese population with larger resections. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic, I.

Abstract Background Postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMR) increases patient satisfaction, quality of life, and psychosocial well-being. There is scarce data regarding the safety of PMR in chronic anticoagulated patients. Perioperative complications can reduce patient satisfaction; therefore, it is important to elucidate the safety of PMR in these patients. Methods A retrospective case–control study of patients who underwent PMR with implants and were on chronic anticoagulation was performed at our institution. Inclusion criteria were women ≥ 18 years old. Exclusion criteria included autologous reconstructions, lumpectomy, and oncoplastic procedures. Two controls for every one patient on anticoagulation were matched by age, body mass index, radiotherapy, smoking history, type of reconstruction, time of reconstruction, and laterality. Results From 2009 to 2020, 37 breasts (20 patients) underwent PMR with implant-based reconstruction and were on chronic anticoagulation. A total of 74 breasts (40 patients) who had similar demographic characteristics to the cases were defined as the control group. Mean age for the case group was 53.6 years (standard deviation [SD] = 16.1), mean body mass index was 28.6 kg/m2 (SD = 5.1), and 2.7% of breasts had radiotherapy before reconstruction and 5.4% after reconstruction. Nine patients were on long-term warfarin, six on apixaban, three on rivaroxaban, one on low-molecular-weight heparin, and one on dabigatran. The indications for anticoagulation were prior thromboembolic events in 50%. Anticoagulated patients had a higher risk of capsular contracture (10.8% vs. 0%, p = 0.005). There were no differences regarding incidence of hematoma (2.7% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.63), thromboembolism (5% vs. 0%, p = 0.16), reconstructive-related complications, or length of hospitalization (1.6 days [SD = 24.2] vs. 1.4 days [SD = 24.2], p = 0.85). Conclusion Postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction can be safely performed in patients on chronic anticoagulation with appropriate perioperative management of anticoagulation. This information can be useful for preoperative counseling on these patients.

Background: Since its first description in 2012, the Goldilocks procedure has become an option for immediate breast reconstruction, particularly for obese patients who are poor candidates for traditional implant or autologous reconstruction. In this work, the authors performed a longitudinal study of patients who underwent mastectomy with Goldilocks reconstruction to assess the incidence of additional surgical procedures, and to assess surgical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent mastectomy with the Goldilocks procedure only at Mayo Clinic Rochester between January of 2012 and September of 2019 was performed. Demographics, complications, additional breast procedures performed to attain the final results, and patient-reported outcomes using the BREAST-Q were recorded. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify statistical associations and risk factors. Results: Sixty-three patients (108 breasts) were included. Mean age was 57.8 years. Mean body mass index was 37.6 kg/m2. Median follow-up time after the mastectomy with the Goldilocks procedure was 15 months. The major complication rate within the first 30 days was 9.3 percent. Forty-four breasts (40.7 percent) underwent additional surgery. Dyslipidemia was significantly associated with an increased risk of additional surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.00; p = 0.045). Scores in the four BREAST-Q domains were not statistically different between patients who had additional procedures and those who did not. Conclusions: Based on the results, the authors recommend a thorough preoperative discussion with patients who are candidates for the Goldilocks procedure to explore all options for reconstruction and their expectations, because it is crucial to reduce the necessity for additional operations in this high-risk population. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Background: Panniculectomy is a commonly performed body contouring procedure to address skin laxity and its related complications. This study aimed to assess clinical outcomes of abdominal panniculectomy and identify predictors of complications at a tertiary academic healthcare center. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent panniculectomy between January 2010 and January 2020 at our institution was performed. Exclusion criteria were a history of prior panniculectomy or abdominoplasty. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were collected. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess the risk factors of complications. Results: The mean age in the included 238 patients was 51.7 ± 12.7 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) at the time of panniculectomy was 33 ± 7.5 kg/m 2 . Median resection weight was 2.7 kg (range: 0.15–14.6) and median length of hospital stay was 2 days (range: 0–24). Mean follow-up time was 50 ± 37 months. The rate of major complications was 22.3%. Revision surgery was performed in 3.4% of the cases. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that increase in BMI ( P = 0.007) and active smoking ( P = 0.026) were significantly associated with increased odds of major complication, and increase in BMI ( P = 0.0004), history of venous thromboembolism ( P = 0.034) and having a concomitant ventral hernia repair ( P = 0.0044) were significantly associated with having a length of hospital stay of 3 days or more. Conclusions: Panniculectomy is generally safe to perform, with major postoperative complication rate of 22.3% in our series. Increase in BMI and active smoking were significantly associated with having a major complication. Higher BMI, concomitant hernia repair, and a history of venous thromboembolism were associated with length of hospital stay of 3 days or more.

Abstract Background Tranexamic acid (TXA) has gained increasing recognition as a valuable pharmacologic agent within plastic surgery. Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the value and safety profile of both intravenous and topically administered TXA in the setting of bilateral reduction mammaplasty. Methods A retrospective review was performed to identify consecutive patients who underwent bilateral reduction mammaplasty for symptomatic macromastia (January 2016-July 2021). Pertinent preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative details were collected/reviewed. Primary outcome measures included hematoma requiring surgical evacuation and clinically significant/symptomatic seroma formation mandating percutaneous aspiration. Patients taking anticoagulation/antiplatelet medication or those with a history of thromboembolic diseases were excluded. Patients who had received TXA were compared to a historical control group who did not receive TXA within the same consecutive cohort. Results A total of 385 consecutive patients (770 breasts) were included. TXA was used in 514 (66.8%) cases (topical, 318 [61.9%]; intravenous, 170 [33.1%]; intravenous and topical, 26 [5.1%]). Neither seroma nor hematoma were impacted/reduced with TXA (P &gt; 0.05). Increased age (hazards ratio, 1.06 per 1-year increase; 95% CI, 1.004-1.118) significantly increased the risk of hematoma (P = 0.032). The use of drains significantly decreased the risk of seroma (P &lt; 0.0001). Increased BMI increased the risk of seroma (hazards ratio, 1.16 per 1-kg/m2 increase; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26; P = 0.0013). The use of TXA did not impact drain duration. Conclusions This study, the largest to date on the use of IV and topical TXA, did not find any reduction in risk when using TXA in breast reduction surgery. Level of Evidence: 3

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.