MicroRNA-409-3p/BTG2 signaling axis improves impaired angiogenesis and wound healing in obese mice.

Wound healing is facilitated by neoangiogenesis, a complex process that is essential to tissue repair in response to injury. MicroRNAs are small, noncoding RNAs that can regulate the wound healing process including stimulation of impaired angiogenesis that is associated with type-2 diabetes (T2D). Expression of miR-409-3p was significantly increased in the nonhealing skin wounds of patients with T2D compared to the non-wounded normal skin, and in the skin of a murine model with T2D. In response to high glucose, neutralization of miR-409-3p markedly improved EC growth and migration in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), promoted wound closure and angiogenesis as measured by increased CD31 in human skin organoids, while overexpression attenuated EC angiogenic responses. Bulk mRNA-Seq transcriptomic profiling revealed BTG2 as a target of miR-409-3p, where overexpression of miR-409-3p significantly decreased BTG2 mRNA and protein expression. A 3' untranslated region (3'-UTR) luciferase assay of BTG2 revealed decreased luciferase activity with overexpression of miR-409-3p, while inhibition had opposite effects. Mechanistically, in response to high glucose, miR-409-3p deficiency in ECs resulted in increased mTOR phosphorylation, meanwhile BTG-anti-proliferation factor 2 (BTG2) silencing significantly decreased mTOR phosphorylation. Endothelial-specific and tamoxifen-inducible miR-409-3p knockout mice (MiR-409IndECKO ) with hyperglycemia that underwent dorsal skin wounding showed significant improvement of wound closure, increased blood flow, granulation tissue thickness (GTT), and CD31 that correlated with increased BTG2 expression. Taken together, our results show that miR-409-3p is a critical mediator of impaired angiogenesis in diabetic skin wound healing.

The Keystone Perforator Island Flap: Review of Utility and Versatile Clinical Applications.

Background: The keystone perforator island flap (KPIF) was described almost a decade ago. However, this flap has only recently been recognized for its advantages in various clinical applications in plastic surgery. A better understanding of the versatility of KPIFs can help promote the widespread adoption of this technique for complex wounds in various anatomical regions. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients undergoing KPIFs from December 2018 to March 2022 at the authors' home institution. The indications, surgical approaches, patient characteristics, and outcomes were extracted for review and analysis. Results: A total of 12 patients (ages 13-86 years) underwent reconstruction with KPIFs for oncologic and nononcologic defects. By anatomic region, three cases involved the upper back, six involved the lumbosacral region, one involved the perineum, and two involved the midfoot. Half of the patients (n = 6) had failed previous attempts at wound closure. The mean defect size was 13.8 × 10.0 cm for the upper back lesions, 13.7 × 4.8 for the lumbosacral defects, and 3.5 × 2.0 for the metatarsal wounds. Median follow-up time for all patients was 7.5 months (IQR: 4-10.5). On follow-up, there was 100% flap survival. Conclusion: KPIFs are a simple, safe, and suitable option for reconstructive closure of defects in many anatomical areas, including wounds complicated by previous failed closure attempts, with low complication risk profile.

Practical oncoplastic surgery techniques needed for practice.

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery that includes immediate breast reconstruction. OPS has previously been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for breast cancer. In a special series on Breast Reconstruction, we aimed to describe oncoplastic breast reconstruction options and the corresponding technical details. Sections were divided by descriptions of OPS specific preoperative workup, volume displacement techniques, volume replacement techniques, and postoperative considerations. In addition, to sharing expert surgical pearls gained through performing OPS procedures over the years. Innovations in breast reconstruction offer women treatment options that are both oncologically safe and aesthetically preferred. The rise in reconstructive procedures is changing how patients make decisions based on their diagnosis. The ultimate surgical decision should be determined by the patient's anatomy, patient's personal preferences, tumor characteristics, and clinical presentation in a shared decision-making fashion with a multidisciplinary team. However, with both volume displacement and volume replacement techniques, women of all breast sizes can achieve an aesthetic outcome without sacrificing oncologic resection.

Poor accessibility to consumer pricing exists for elective hernia repair surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hospital price transparency is federally mandated to improve consumer accessibility. We aimed to evaluate how hospitals were complying with these regulations for elective hernia repairs. METHODS: Searches were performed for different hospital systems in attempt to find a price for the procedure using author's own health insurance. Data collected included time to reach the cost estimate tool, time to obtain price estimates, and price ranges. With prices for inguinal and ventral hernia repairs varying across the state's medical centers. RESULTS: Fourteen medical centers across the country were included, all had a cost estimate calculator. The average success rate of obtaining a cost for inguinal hernia was 48%. Comparatively, the average success rate of obtaining a cost for ventral hernia was 12%. Of the successful searches for price, significant variation exists amongst the accessed hernia procedure cost. CONCLUSION: Despite federal mandates for hospital price transparency, online cost-estimate calculators are underperforming, thus exposing a need for more accessible cost-estimates for patients undergoing elective hernia repair.

The impact of body mass index on oncoplastic breast surgery: A multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has nearly tripled in the last 50 years. During the last decades, oncoplastic breast surgery has become an important choice in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. An association exists between higher body mass index (BMI) and wound complications for major operations, but there is scarce literature on oncoplastic surgery. Hence, our aim was to compare the complication rates among patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery, stratified by BMI. METHODS: Patient data were analyzed from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (NSQIP) for oncoplastic breast procedures (2005-2020). Patients were stratified according to World Health Organization obesity classifications. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess risk factors for complications (overall, operative, and wound-related). RESULTS: From a total of 6887 patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery, 4229 patients were nonobese, 1380 had Class 1 obesity (BMI: 30 to <35 kg/m2 ), 737 Class 2 obesity (BMI: 35 to <40 kg/m2 ), and 541 Class 3 obesity (BMI: ≥ 40 kg/m2 ). Greater operative time was found according to higher BMI (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics showed that patients with obesity Class 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.23, p = 0.037) and 3 (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.24-2.83, p = 0.003) had increased risk of overall and wound complications compared with Nonobese patients. Comparing obese with nonobese patients, there were no differences in rates of deep SSI, organ/space SSI, pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infection, stroke, bleeding, postoperative sepsis, length of stay, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Oncoplastic surgery is a safe procedure for most patients. However, caution should be exercised when performing oncoplastic surgery for patients with Class 2 or 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 ), given there was a higher rate of overall and wound-specific complications, compared with patients who were not obese or had Class 1 obesity.

External Validation of the Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator (BCSRc): A Predictive Model for Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: The breast cancer surgical risk calculator (BCSRc) is a prognostic tool that determines a breast cancer patient's unique risk of acute complications following each possible surgical intervention. When used in the preoperative setting, it can help to stratify patients with an increased complication risk and enhance the patient-physician informed decision-making process. The objective of this study was to externally validate the four models used in the BCSRc on a large cohort of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The BCSRc was developed by using a retrospective cohort from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2018. Four models were built by using logistic regression methods to predict the following composite outcomes: overall, infectious, hematologic, and internal organ complications. This study obtained a new cohort of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program by utilizing participant user files from 2019 to 2020. The area under the curve, brier score, and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test measured model performance, accuracy, and calibration, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 192,095 patients met inclusion criteria in the development of the BCSRc, and the validation cohort included 60,144 women. The area under the curve during external validation for each model was approximately 0.70. Accuracy, or Brier scores, were all between 0.04 and 0.003. Model calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic found all p-values > 0.05. All of these model coefficients will be updated on the web-based BCSRc platform: www.breastcalc.org . CONCLUSIONS: The BCSRc continues to show excellent external-validation measures. Collectively, this prognostic tool can enhance the decision-making process, help stratify patients with an increased complication risk, and improve expectant management.

The adoption of oncoplastic surgery: Is there a learning curve?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy followed by volume displacement or replacement surgery. As the field of OPS is growing, we sought to determine if there was a learning curve to this surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent OPS over a 6-year period with a single surgeon formally trained in both Plastic Surgery and Breast Oncology. Cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM) was performed on mean operative time to generate the learning curve and learning curve phases. Outcomes were compared between phases to determine significance. RESULTS: Mean operative time decreased significantly across the 6-year period, generating three distinct learning curve phases: Learner phase (cases 1-23), Competence phase (24-73), and Mastery phase (74 and greater). The overall positive margin rate was 10.9% and there was no significant difference in rates between phases (p = 0.49). Overall complication rates, reoperation rates, and locoregional recurrence remained the same across all phases (p = 0.16; p = 0.65; p = 0.41). The rate of partial nipple loss decreased between phases (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: As with many complex operations, there does appear to be a learning curve with OPS, as the operative time and the rates of partial nipple loss decreased over time.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

We aim to discern the impact of closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) on wound healing in the oncoplastic breast surgery population. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery with and without ciNPT in a single health system over 6 years. Oncoplastic breast surgery was defined as breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy with immediate volume displacement or replacement techniques. Primary outcomes were rates of clinically significant complications requiring either medical or operative intervention, including seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, wound dehiscence, and infection. Secondary outcomes were rates of minor complications. Results: ciNPT was used in 75 patients; standard postsurgical dressing was used in 142 patients. Mean age (P = 0.73) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.11) were similar between the groups. The ciNPT cohort had higher baseline BMIs (28.23 ± 4.94 versus 30.55 ± 6.53; P = 0.004), ASA levels (2.35 ± 0.59 versus 2.62 ± 0.52; P = 0.002), and preoperative macromastia symptoms (18.3% versus 45.9%; P ≤ 0.001). The ciNPT cohort had statistically significant lower rates of clinically relevant complications (16.9% versus 5.3%; P = 0.016), the number of complications (14.1% versus 5.3% with one complication, 2.8% versus 0% with >2; P = 0.044), and wound dehiscence (5.6% versus 0%; P = 0.036). Conclusions: The use of ciNPT reduces the overall rate of clinically relevant postoperative complications, including wound dehiscence. The ciNPT cohort had higher rates of macromastia symptoms, BMI, and ASA, all of which put them at increased risk for complications. Therefore, ciNPT should be considered in the oncoplastic population, especially in those patients with increased risk for postoperative complications.

Single Versus Dual Surgeon Approaches to Oncoplastic Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is traditionally performed using a dual surgeon (DS) approach that involves both a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon. It is also performed using a single surgeon (SS) approach with a surgeon trained in both breast surgical oncology and plastic surgery. We sought to determine if outcomes differed between SS versus DS OPS approaches. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all OPS performed in a single health system over a 6-y period by either an SS or a DS approach. Primary outcomes were rates of positive margins and the overall complication rate; secondary outcomes were loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were identified; 117 were SS cases and 100 were DS cases. Baseline preoperative patient characteristics were similar between the two groups as there was no difference in mean Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (P = 0.07). There was no difference in tumor stage (P = 0.09) or nodal status (P = 0.31). Rates of positive margins were not significantly different (10.9% (SS) versus 9% (DS); P = 0.81), nor were rates of complications (11.1% (SS) versus 15% (DS); P = 0.42). Rates of locoregional recurrence were also not significantly different (1.7% (SS) versus 0% (DS); P = 0.5). Disease-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different at 1-y, 3-y, and 5-y time points (P = 0.20 and P = 0.23, respectively) although follow-up time was not sufficient for definitive analysis regarding survival. CONCLUSIONS: Both SS and DS approaches to OPS have similar outcomes with regards to positive margin rates and surgical complication rates and are comparably safe.

The Use of Hemostatic Agents to Decrease Bleeding Complications in Breast Cancer Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Following breast cancer surgery, patients often require adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy for locoregional and systemic disease control. These procedures may result in postoperative complications, which may delay adjuvant therapy. To potentially decrease these complications, hemostatic agents may be used. This study evaluated the rate of postoperative bleeding complications and duration of Jackson-Pratt (JP) drain use in oncologic breast surgery with and without hemostatic agents. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed. Patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery, mastectomy with or without expander/implant-based reconstruction, and subsequent reconstruction with expander to implant exchange were included. Data collected included indication for surgery, type of operation, use of hemostatic agent, specifically fibrin sealant (FS, EVICEL®, Ethicon, USA) or combination powder (CP, HEMOBLAST™ Bellows, biom'up, France), length of follow-up, time to JP drain removal, and post-operative complications (seroma, hematoma, or operating room (OR) takeback). This was a consecutive experience where initially no hemostatic agent was used, followed by use of FS, and then CP. RESULTS: The use of a hemostatic agent resulted in fewer bleeding complications and significantly decreased time until JP drain removal. Although not significant, subgroup analysis demonstrated that this was more pronounced in the CP group. JP drain duration was decreased among all procedures for CP compared to FS. CONCLUSIONS: The use of hemostatic agents in oncologic breast surgery may result in decreased postoperative complications and significantly reduce time to JP drain removal.

Comparing oncoplastic breast reduction with immediate symmetry surgery to standard breast reduction surgery: Are postoperative complications worse?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic breast reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is an excellent treatment option for women with breast cancer and macromastia undergoing breast conservation therapy. Here, we aim to better understand the risks associated with ORM compared to standard reduction mammoplasty (SRM). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing ORM or SRM from 2015 to 2021. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of major or minor postoperative complications in the two groups and delays to adjuvant therapy (>90 days) among the women undergoing ORM. RESULTS: Women in the ORM group (n = 198) were significantly older (p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of smoking (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.01), and a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 (p < 0.001) compared to women undergoing SRM (n = 177). After controlling for potential confounders, there were no significant between-group differences in the odds of developing postoperative complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.69). Only 3% (n = 4) of the 150 women undergoing adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy experienced delays related to postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: ORM has a similar safety profile as SRM, despite the older age and higher number of comorbidities often seen in patients undergoing ORM, and is a safe option for achieving contralateral symmetry at the time of partial mastectomy without delays to adjuvant therapy.

The Use of Hemostatic Agents to Decrease Bleeding Complications in General Plastic Surgery Procedures.

Within plastic surgery, hematomas and seromas are frequently reported complications that can negatively impact wound healing and result in significant morbidity in patients. As a result, there has been considerable interest in hemostatic agents to complement traditional methods of hemostasis. The purpose of this study was to evaluate postoperative bleeding complications and duration of Jackson-Pratt (JP) drain use in general plastic surgery procedures with and without hemostatic agents. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed. Patients who underwent bilateral breast reduction, panniculectomy, or abdominoplasty were included. Data collected included indication for surgery, type of operation, use of hemostatic agent, specifically fibrin sealant (FS, EVICEL, Ethicon, USA) or combination powder (CP, HEMOBLAST Bellows, Biom'up, France), length of follow-up, time to JP drain removal, postoperative complications, and specimen weight. This was a consecutive experience where initially no hemostatic agent was used, followed by use of FS, and then CP. RESULTS: The use of a hemostatic agent resulted in reduced time duration for JP drain use and overall fewer recorded complications in the hemostatic agent groups. Although not significant, the hemostatic agent group (FS and CP) experienced fewer hematomas and seromas compared with the nonhemostatic agent group. JP drain duration was significantly less among breast reduction (3.46 versus 6.92 days, P < 0.01) for CP when compared with FS. CONCLUSION: The use of hemostatic agents in general plastic surgery procedures may result in decreased postoperative complications and significantly reduce time to JP drain removal.

A Comparison of BREAST-Q Scores between Prepectoral and Subpectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Subpectoral breast implant placement has in recent history predominated in breast reconstruction, but there has been more recent adoption of prepectoral implant reconstruction. There has been limited study to date of patient-reported outcomes comparing the two techniques. METHODS: Patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction between 2013 and 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Eligible patients were asked to complete BREAST-Q domains comparing quality of life and satisfaction. Descriptive, t test, chi-square test, and multivariate linear regression analyses were performed to compare BREAST-Q scores. Significance was defined as p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: There were 64 patients (114 breasts) who underwent prepectoral reconstruction and 37 patients (68 breasts) who underwent subpectoral reconstruction. Among the 101 women (182 breasts), there were no significant differences between BREAST-Q scores and implant position for the Satisfaction with Breasts domain (adjusted p = 0.819), Psychosocial Well-being domain (adjusted p = 0.206), or Physical Well-being Chest domain (adjusted p = 0.110). The subpectoral implant cohort was associated with higher scores, 53 versus 47, for the Sexual Well-being module (adjusted p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing direct-to-implant breast reconstruction had comparable BREAST-Q satisfaction scores for most modules regardless of implant plane. The subpectoral implant cohort scored higher for sexual well-being.

Reconstructive and restorative cues improve public perception on the value of plastic and reconstructive surgeries.

BACKGROUND: Persistent public misconceptions of plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS), ambiguity between cosmetic versus reconstructive surgical procedures, and subjective interpretation of aesthetics can result in undervaluing of the field. Our study analyzes how patient context (cosmetic or reconstructive/restorative cues) affect public perception of outcomes and value of surgery. METHODS: We distributed Qualtrics™ surveys to laypersons via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Demographics were self-reported. The survey presented a series of pre- and post-operative photographs of PRS surgeries alongside either a cosmetic or reconstructive/restorative cue, followed by questions on values of procedure. Survey responses were analyzed using two-tailed Student's t tests and chi square analyses, univariate and multivariate analysis, and linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 459 respondents, the mean age was 38.5 ± 12.1 years, and was 50.5% (232) male. The majority of respondents classified breast reconstruction as a cosmetic surgery (243, 66.8%), and was rated more attractive (p < 0.0005), higher impact on self-esteem (p < 0.001), and to be covered by health insurance (p < 0.0001) compared to breast augmentation. Reconstructive cued breast and facial procedures were viewed more favorably; the exception was gynecomastia reduction. Reconstructive classification had significant positive correlation with support for insurance coverage (R2 = 0.8268) and willingness to pursue (R2 = 0.5328). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed more public support for reconstructive/restorative cued PRS cases over cosmetic cued PRS cases, and persistent misconceptions of breast reconstruction as a cosmetic procedure. Reconstructive or restorative cues can be used to educate the public and address skewed perceptions on the roles and value of PRS.

The Impact of Premastectomy Versus Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Outcomes in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is being increasingly performed over subpectoral reconstruction because of the reduced invasiveness of the procedure, postoperative pain, and risk of animation deformity. Radiation therapy is a well-known risk factor for complications in implant-based breast reconstruction. The effect of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been well-defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with inferior dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix performed by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2019. Demographic, clinical and operative data were reviewed and recorded. Outcomes were assessed by comparing rates of capsular contracture, infection, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, rippling, implant loss, local recurrence and metastatic disease, between patients receiving premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy and nonradiated patients. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients (592 breasts) underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Twenty-six patients (28 breasts) received premastectomy radiation, 45 patients (71 breasts) received postmastectomy radiation, and 305 patients (493 breasts) did not receive radiation therapy. Patients with premastectomy radiation had higher rates of seroma (14.3% vs 0.2%), minor infection (10.7% vs 1.2%), implant loss (21.4% vs 3.4%) and local recurrence (7.1% vs 1.0%), compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.05). Patients with postmastectomy radiation had higher rates of major infection (8.4% vs 2.4%), capsular contracture (19.7% vs 3.2%), implant loss (9.9% vs 3.4%), and local recurrence (5.6% vs 1.0%) when compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.03). Outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction were comparable between premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation patients, respectively, with regard to major infection (7.1% vs 8.4%), dehiscence (3.6% vs 1.4%), major mastectomy skin flap necrosis (7.1% vs 2.8%), capsular contracture (10.7% vs 19.7%), implant loss (21.4% vs 9.9%), and local recurrence (7.1% vs 5.6%) (P ≥ 0.184). However, premastectomy radiation patients had a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation patients (14.3% vs 0%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In prepectoral implant breast reconstruction, premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy were associated with higher rates of infection and implant loss compared with nonradiated patients. Postmastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of capsular contracture compared with nonradiated patients, and a comparable rate of capsular contracture compared with premastectomy radiation therapy patients. Premastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation and nonradiated patients.

Thinking Outside the Black Box: Current Perceptions on Breast Implant Safety and Utility.

BACKGROUND: There is growing public concern surrounding breast implant safety. In fact, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently proposed changes to breast implant labeling, which include a boxed warning. Given such efforts to increase transparency on breast implant safety, this study assessed laywomen's perceptions of breast implant safety, and the impact of proposed changes to breast implant labeling on laywomen's decision-making regarding breast implants. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional investigation of women recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Discrete choice modeling was used to query opinions on breast implants after viewing proposed labeling changes. Chi-square and analysis of variance were used for subgroup analyses, and McNemar analyses were used to assess changes in participants' responses. RESULTS: The authors received 500 survey responses. At baseline, 353 participants (70.6 percent) considered breast implants to be at least somewhat safe. After viewing the proposed boxed warning, 252 participants (50.4 percent) responded that they would be less likely to receive implants. In fact, a significantly greater proportion of participants considered breast implants to be either unsafe or very unsafe after viewing suggested changes to implant labeling than at baseline (58.4 percent versus 28.8 percent; p = 0.001). By the end of the survey, willingness to consider alternative options for breast augmentation/reconstruction increased significantly from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Improved labeling can enhance laywomen's understanding of breast implant safety and can impact decision-making. However, greater scrutiny of breast implants should not prevent women who need implants from receiving them. Transparency and objectivity in the surgeon-patient dialogue can ensure the appropriate use of medical devices such as breast implants.

Complications and Patient-reported Outcomes after TRAM and DIEP Flaps: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps are the most common abdominally based breast reconstruction procedures. Each technique has its advantages and disadvantages; however, how morbidity relates to satisfaction is not well-understood. Our aim was to compare complications and patient-reported outcomes following pedicled TRAM (pTRAM), free TRAM (fTRAM), and DIEP flaps to guide flap selection. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted, and 2 independent reviewers identified comparative studies of abdominally based flaps. Data were extracted on patient characteristics, complications, and patient-reported outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects modeling with the DerSimonian and Laird method. RESULTS: The search retrieved 5090 articles, of which 18 were included in this review. pTRAM flaps trended toward a higher risk of abdominal bulge/hernia compared with DIEP flaps, particularly in low-volume hospitals. While fTRAM flaps had a higher risk of abdominal morbidity compared with DIEP flaps, relative risk decreased when obese patients were excluded and when only muscle-sparing fTRAM flaps were compared. Muscle-sparing flaps had a higher risk of flap loss than fTRAM flaps. Compared with DIEP flaps, pTRAM flaps were associated with lower general satisfaction but comparable emotional well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that safety and satisfaction following abdominally based breast reconstruction depend on flap type and patient characteristics. When possible, DIEP or muscle-sparing fTRAM flaps should be performed for obese patients to decrease the risk of abdominal bulge/hernia. Although pTRAM flaps are associated with a greater risk of flap loss, they are still an appropriate option when microsurgery is not available.

Surgical versus Nonsurgical Management of Postmastectomy Lymphedema: A Prospective Quality of Life Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy secondary lymphedema can cause substantial morbidity. However, few studies have investigated longitudinal quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients with postmastectomy lymphedema, especially with regard to surgical versus nonoperative management. This study prospectively investigated QoL in surgically versus nonsurgically managed patients with postmastectomy upper extremity lymphedema. METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study of breast cancer-related lymphedema patients at a single institution, between February 2017 and January 2020. Lymphedema Quality of Life Instrument (LyQLI) and RAND-36 QoL instrument were used. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive statistics. Wilcoxon's signed-rank testing and linear modeling were used to analyze longitudinal changes in QoL. RESULTS: Thirty-two lymphedema patients were recruited to the study (20 surgical and 12 nonsurgical). Surgical and nonsurgical cohorts did not significantly differ in clinical/demographic characteristics or baseline QoL scores, but at the 12-month time point surgical patients had significantly greater LyQLI overall health scores than nonsurgical patients (79.3 vs. 58.3, p = 0.02), as well as higher composite RAND-36 physical (68.5 vs. 38.3, p = 0.04), and mental (77.0 vs. 52.7, p = 0.02) scores. Furthermore, LyQLI overall health scores significantly improved over time in surgical patients (60.0 at baseline vs. 79.3 at 12 months, p = 0.04). Besides surgical treatment, race, and age were also found to significantly impact QoL on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that when compared with nonoperative management, surgery improved QoL for chronic, secondary upper extremity lymphedema patients within 12-month postoperatively. Our results also suggested that insurance status may have influenced decisions to undergo lymphedema surgery. Further study is needed to investigate the various sociodemographic factors that were also found to impact QoL outcomes in these lymphedema patients.