Subpectoral Implant Repositioning With Partial Capsule Preservation: Treating the Long-Term Complications of Subglandular Breast Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with long-term complications associated with subglandular breast augmentation are being seen in increasing numbers in the Southern California community. Late deformities include a characteristic "slide-down" deformity as well as capsular contracture, implant wrinkling, and nipple-areola complex enlargement. Repositioning the implant to a subpectoral pocket is a recognized revisionary technique to treat this problem; however, technical details of how this is accomplished are lacking in the literature. OBJECTIVES: To review our technique for treating long-term complications associated with subglandular implants using subpectoral repositioning with partial capsule preservation and mastopexy, without the need for an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) or mesh. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing subpectoral repositioning over the course of 6 years was performed. Patient data and long-term outcomes were assessed. A technique is presented utilizing a partial capsulectomy that preserves a portion of the capsule as an ADM/mesh equivalent, ensuring adequate implant coverage and preventing window shading of the pectoralis major muscle. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients with subglandular implants and slide-down deformity as well as other associated complications including capsular contracture, implant wrinkling, and enlarged areolas underwent revision surgery with a subpectoral site change. Often, patients presented many years after their initial augmentation (mean 18 years, range 4-38 years). The average patient follow-up was 3.1 years (range 1.0-6.8 years). Two patients required minor revisions with local anesthetic, while another 2 revisions required general anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term deformities associated with subglandular breast augmentation can reliably be corrected by subpectoral repositioning, mastopexy, and utilization of residual breast capsule in the place of an ADM or mesh.

The K-Wire Fixation Technique for Endoscopic Brow Lift: A Long-Term Follow-Up.

BACKGROUND: Many techniques have been presented for fixation during endoscopic brow lift, but no singular technique has become dominant. OBJECTIVES: The authors described a technique for fixation for endoscopic brow lift that is inexpensive, easy to use, and versatile and has minimal morbidity. METHODS: The charts of 284 patients who underwent the K-wire fixation technique between December 1996 and September 2018 were reviewed. This technique employs a transcutaneous K-wire to hold the brow in position until tissue adhesion creates a lasting elevation of the brow. RESULTS: A total of 284 patients underwent K-wire fixation for endoscopic brow lifting. Two patients had hematomas and 5 patients (1.8%) required a second unilateral brow lift procedure. Long-term elevation of the brow was maintained in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: K-wire fixation for endoscopic brow lift is a simple, safe, and effective technique for fixation during endoscopic brow lifting that provides long-term aesthetic results.

Treatment of Nasal Aging and Possible Long-term Nasal Enhancement with Fat Using Injectable Tissue Replacement.

This article addresses nasal aging using a minimally invasive procedure with an algorithm that includes the diagnosis of a patient's nose within the context of the individual's facial anatomy. Pyriform augmentation for the elevation of tip projection and columellar strutting with injectable fat are, to our knowledge, applied for the first time as important steps in minimally invasive rhinoplasties. This procedure offers patients with more subtle nasal changes with aging or other causes to be treated with potentially long-lasting improvements, which can be easily retreated. New techniques using injectable liquid cartilage grafts are being explored.

Pre-Operative Antisepsis Protocol Compliance and the Effect on Bacterial Load Reduction.

BACKGROUND: Adequate skin preparation is essential to preventing surgical site infection. Many products are available, each with specific manufacturers' directions. This lack of standardization may lead to incorrect use of the agents and affect the bacterial load reduction. We hypothesize that a lack of adherence to utilization protocols for surgical skin antiseptics affects bacterial load reduction. METHODS: Thirty subjects who routinely perform surgical skin preparation were recruited from four hospitals. Participants completed a questionnaire of both demographics and familiarity with two of the most common skin prep formulas: Chlorhexidine gluconate-isopropyl alcohol (CHG-IPA) and povidone-iodine (PVI) scrub and paint. Randomly selecting one formula, subjects performed skin preparation for ankle surgery on a healthy standardized patient. This was repeated using the second formula on the opposite ankle. Performance was recorded and reviewed by two independent evaluators using standardized dichotomous checklists created against the manufacturer's recommended application. Swabs of the patients' first interweb space and medial malleolus were obtained before, 1 min after, and 30 min after prep, and plated on Luria Bertani agar. Bacterial loads were measured in colony forming units (CFUs) for each anatomical site. Data was analyzed using a univariate linear regression. RESULTS: Subjects had an average of 12.7 ± 2.2 y operating room experience and 8.8 ± 1.5 y of skin prep experience. Despite this, no participant performed 100% of the manufacturers' steps correctly. All essential formula-specific steps were performed 90% of the time for CHG-IPA and 33.3% for PVI (p = 0.0001). No correlation was found between experience or familiarity and number of correct steps for either formula. Average reduction in CFUs was not different between CHG-IPA and PVI at 30 min for all anatomical sites (75.2 ± 5.4% vs. 73.7 ± 4.5%, p = 0.7662). Bacterial reductions at 30 min following skin prep were not substantially correlated with operator experience, protocol compliance, or total prep time for either formula. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates existing problems with infection prevention as those tasked with pre-operative skin preparation do so with tremendous incongruence according to manufacturer guidelines. No effect on bacterial load was identified, however with a larger sample size this may be noted. Standardization of the prep solutions as well as simplification and education of the correct techniques may enhance protocol compliance.

Retained foreign bodies: risk and outcomes at the national level.

BACKGROUND: Retained foreign bodies (RFB) after operative interventions are linked to an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, and represent a medico-legal liability. We aimed to identify associated risk factors and outcomes related to iatrogenic RFB in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis was performed on all interventions that resulted in a secondary diagnosis of RFB in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2003 to 2009. Comparative controls were randomly selected from patients who underwent similar procedures. RESULTS: We identified 3,045 cases of RFB, and 12,592 controls were included. The majority of incidents, 968 (31.8%), were reported after gastrointestinal interventions. Risk of RFB was higher in teaching hospitals (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% CI [1.19, 1.45], p < 0.001). For abdominopelvic procedures, patients admitted with traumatic injuries did not demonstrate a higher risk of RFB compared with electively admitted patients (OR 1.70, 95% CI [0.94, 3.07], p = 0.08). However, for procedures unrelated to abdominopelvic surgery, patients admitted for trauma had a lower risk (OR 0.62, 95% CI [0.50, 0.78], p < 0.001). Obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and older age (≥ 65 years) were significantly associated with a higher risk only for abdominopelvic procedures (p < 0.01 for both). Retained foreign bodies were associated with a higher average cost of health services ($26,678.00 ± $769.69 vs $12,648.00 ± $192.80, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Retained foreign bodies have unfavorable and nationally tangible clinical and economic outcomes. The risk profile for RFB at the national level seems to demonstrate an association with demographic and clinical factors including nature of the procedure, type of admission, and trauma status. Teaching hospitals are associated with a higher risk. Targeted efforts toward identified high-risk populations are needed to avoid these morbid and costly complications.

Robot-assisted versus standard laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Over the years, there has been a continual shift toward more minimally invasive surgical techniques, such as the use of laparoscopy in colorectal surgery. Recently, there has been increasing adoption of robotic technology. Our study aims to compare and contrast robot-assisted and laparoscopic approaches to colorectal operations. METHODS: Forty patients undergoing laparoscopic or robotic colorectal surgery performed by 2 surgeons at an academic center, regardless of indication, were included in this retrospective review. Patients undergoing open approaches were excluded. Study outcomes included operative time, estimated blood loss, length of stay, complications, and conversion rate to an open procedure. RESULTS: Twenty-five laparoscopic and fifteen robot-assisted colorectal surgeries were performed. The mean patient age was 61.1 ± 10.7 years in the laparoscopic group compared with 61.1 ± 8.5 years in the robotic group (P = .997). Patients had a similar body mass index and history of abdominal surgery. Mean blood loss was 163.3 ± 249.2 mL and 96.8 ± 157.7 mL, respectively (P = .385). Operative times were similar, with 190.8 ± 84.3 minutes in the laparoscopic group versus 258.4 ± 170.8 minutes in the robotic group (P = .183), as were lengths of hospital stay: 9.6 ± 7.3 and 6.5 ± 3.8 days, respectively (P = .091). In addition, there was no difference in the number of lymph nodes harvested between the laparoscopic group (14.0 ± 6.5) and robotic group (12.3 ± 4.2, P = .683). CONCLUSIONS: In our early experience, the robotic approach to colorectal surgery can be considered both safe and efficacious. Furthermore, it also preserves oncologically sufficient outcomes when performed for cancer operations.

Robotic versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Robotic approaches have become increasingly used for colorectal surgery. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of robotic colorectal procedures in an adult population. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of articles in both PubMed and Embase comparing laparoscopic and robotic colorectal procedures was performed. Clinical trials and observational studies in an adult population were included. Approaches were evaluated in terms of operative time, length of stay, estimated blood loss, number of lymph nodes harvested, and perioperative complications. Mean net differences and odds ratios were calculated to examine treatment effect of each group. RESULTS: Two hundred eighteen articles were identified, and 17 met the inclusion criteria, representing 4,342 patients: 920 robotic and 3,422 in the laparoscopic group. Operative time for the robotic approach was 38.849 minutes longer (95% confidence interval: 17.944 to 59.755). The robotic group had lower estimated blood loss (14.17 mL; 95% confidence interval: -27.63 to -1.60), and patients were 1.78 times more likely to be converted to an open procedure (95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 2.55). There was no difference between groups with respect to number of lymph nodes harvested, length of stay, readmission rate, or perioperative complication rate. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach to colorectal surgery is as safe and efficacious as conventional laparoscopic surgery. However, it is associated with longer operative time and an increased rate of conversion to laparotomy. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to examine the cost-effectiveness of robotic colorectal surgery before it can be adopted as the new standard of care.

Cutaneous Metastases from Primary Hepatobiliary Tumors as the First Sign of Tumor Recurrence following Liver Transplantation.

Cutaneous metastasis from hepatobiliary tumors is a rare event, especially following liver transplantation. We report our experience with two cases of cutaneous metastases from both hepatocellular carcinoma and mixed hepatocellular/cholangiocarcinoma following liver transplantation, along with a review of the literature.

Laparoscopic techniques enable peritoneal dialysis in the difficult abdomen.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis has become an increasingly popular modality of renal replacement therapy. Laparoscopic placement of peritoneal dialysis catheters may help overcome previous barriers to peritoneal dialysis, such as previous abdominal surgical procedures or the presence of hernias, without incurring substantially greater risks. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of 120 consecutive patients who underwent attempted laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter placement between July 2009 and June 2014 by a single surgeon. Patient and catheter characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients with and without complications, as well as between patients with a history of major abdominal surgery and those without such a history. RESULTS: Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter placement was aborted in 4 patients because of an inability to safely achieve sufficient access to the abdominal cavity through dissection; these patients were excluded from subsequent analysis. The mean follow-up period was 18.8 ± 12.9 months. Fifty-five patients had a history of major abdominal surgery compared with 61 without such a history. No significant difference was observed with respect to age, race, sex, or body mass index between groups. Notably, more adjunctive procedures were required in patients with previous abdominal surgery, including adhesiolysis (60.0% vs 4.9%, P < .0001) and hernia repair (12.7% vs 1.6%, P = .026). Postoperative catheter complications were not significantly different between patients with and patients without a history of abdominal surgery (29.1% vs 32.8%, P = .667). Both unassisted (56.8% vs 65.0%, P = .397) and overall (72.7% vs 76.7%, P = .647) 1-year catheter survival rates were similar between patients with and patients without previous surgery, and the overall 1-year survival rate improved to 83.9% on exclusion of patients who stopped peritoneal dialysis for nonsurgical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic peritoneal dialysis catheter placement offers a chance to establish peritoneal dialysis access in patients traditionally viewed as noncandidates for this modality. Despite the potential risks incurred because of additional procedures at the time of catheter placement in these complicated cases, these patients can achieve good long-term peritoneal dialysis access with an aggressive surgical approach.