Citations

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.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesStandard treatment for extremity sarcoma is limb‐sparing surgery often with radiation, but complications occur frequently. We sought to determine factors predictive of wound complications after thigh sarcoma resection and reconstruction while analyzing trends over time.MethodsWe reviewed all thigh defects requiring plastic surgeon reconstruction following sarcoma resection at our institution from 1997 to 2014. Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative characteristics, multi‐modality therapies, and complications were analyzed. Wound complications were: infection, dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, or partial/total flap loss.ResultsThere were 159 thigh reconstructions followed for 30 months on average. Eighty‐seven percent of patients underwent radiation and 42% had chemotherapy. Almost half (49.1%) had a complication. The most common wound complication was surgical site infection (23.3%) followed by dehiscence (19.5%), and seroma (10.7%). Less common were partial (2.5%) or total flap loss (0.6%). Reoperation was required in 21 patients (13.2%). Tobacco use, older patient age, cardiac disease, and higher body mass index were independently associated with wound complications. Complications trended towards decreasing over time, but this was not statistically significant.ConclusionsTobacco use, cardiac disease, and higher body mass index, but not the timing of reconstruction, appear to increase the risk of wound complications after thigh soft tissue sarcomas resection and plastic surgery reconstruction.

Background: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has gained popularity because of advantages over the subpectoral technique. Acellular dermal matrix use with implant-based breast reconstruction has become common because of its perceived superior aesthetic outcome. Matrices are expensive, however, and recent evidence has pointed to several potential complications. This article reports a series of prepectoral implant-based breast reconstructions with and without acellular dermal matrix and compared their outcomes. Methods: This is a single-surgeon retrospective review of patients who underwent staged prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy over two periods. Patients with well-perfused mastectomy skin flaps with a homogeneous thickness underwent reconstruction with acellular dermal matrix initially. On evolution of the practice, it was not used. Patient demographics, operative data, and complications were analyzed. Aesthetic outcome was measured by the BREAST-Q survey and the Aesthetic Item Scale. A cost analysis was also performed. Results: Forty patients were included (acellular dermal matrix group, n = 19; non–acellular dermal matrix group, n = 21). The nonmatrix group had one case (5 percent) of seroma and one case (5 percent) with hematoma; there were none in the acellular dermal matrix group. Average BREAST-Q and Aesthetic Item Scale scores were 82.3 versus 81.6 (p = 0.954) and 20.98 versus 20.43 (p = 0.640) for the matrix and nonmatrix groups, respectively. The direct cost savings for the authors’ institution over 1 year if matrix was not used in all cases of implant-based breast reconstruction would be estimated at $3,105,960 to $6,211,920 for unilateral and bilateral cases, respectively, for Medicare reimbursement. Conclusions: With adequate patient selection, acellular dermal matrix is not always required during two-stage prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction for good aesthetic outcomes. The economic burden on patients and the health care system could be lessened with selective matrix use. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

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.

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.