ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Precise planning and evaluation of the fibula bone are necessary if immediate endosseous implant placement is considered. Limited information is available on the anatomical dimensions or density of fibula used in mandibular reconstructions. This study aimed to describe the morphology and dimensions of the fibula used to reconstruct segmental mandibular defects and contrast the findings with the native mandible. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent segmental mandibulectomy reconstructed with osteocutaneous fibula flaps and had at least one postoperative computed tomography scan. Fibula cross sectional dimensions and densities were evaluated with three-dimensional software. Radiographic measurements were obtained from the contralateral mandible medial to the first molar for comparison. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-seven fibula cross sections from 159 segments were evaluated. Cross-sectional oval, quadrilateral, triangular, and pentagonal shapes differed significantly in proportion (p < 0.001). Thirty-eight percent of segments (95 percent CI, 30 to 46 percent) had differences in cross-section height greater than 1 mm (p < 0.001). Between segments within the same patient, the median height difference was 1.58 mm (range, 0.14 to 6 mm). The superior cortex density was significantly higher for the fibula than the native mandible; however, the medullary space density was significantly lower (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current study comprises the most comprehensive description of fibula morphology in mandibular reconstructions and highlights the significant variability that exists. The findings provide justification for the added time and cost of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing in centers interested in performing immediate dental implant placement, as the technology provides the necessary precision and accuracy.
Subject(s)
Free Tissue Flaps , Mandibular Neoplasms , Mandibular Reconstruction , Bone Transplantation , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fibula , Humans , Mandible/diagnostic imaging , Mandible/surgery , Mandibular Neoplasms/surgery , Mandibular Reconstruction/methods , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing numbers of women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing CPM, quantitative evidence of all stakeholder preferences regarding CPM is lacking, particularly for healthy volunteers. Conjoint analysis, a marketing tool, can be used to quantify tradeoffs surrounding CPM. STUDY DESIGN: The objective of this study was to quantify preferences for aspects of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) decision-making process among key stakeholders. Healthy volunteers, women with cancer (WwCa), surgical oncologists, and plastic surgeons were surveyed with the same conjoint simulation exercise. Respondents chose between either single (SM) or double (DM) mastectomy under varying recurrence and complication rates, surveillance, and symmetry conditions. Hierarchical Bayesian models calculated partworth utilities and importance scores. RESULTS: Overall, 1,244 respondents participated. The top 3 important factors for all stakeholders were surgical complication rates after DM, type of surgery (SM vs DM) independent of other variables, and 10-year future contralateral cancer risk after SM. HV and surgeons placed greatest importance on high rates of surgical complications after DM. WwCa preferred DM, regardless of complication risk or low rates of a 10-year future cancer episode after SM. Surgical oncologists strongly preferred SM and were more accepting of future cancer risk of 3% or 10% than other stakeholders. Symmetry and need for surveillance were least important factors for all stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: The threshold of acceptability for future cancer episodes and risk tolerance for complications varies by stakeholder, with a profound influence upon WwCA. Current findings suggest room for improved provider and patient alignment through behavioral techniques, such as framing, meanwhile highlighting changes in risk perception after a breast cancer diagnosis.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/prevention & control , Prophylactic Mastectomy/psychology , Stakeholder Participation/psychology , Surgery, Plastic , Surgical Oncology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Bayes Theorem , Decision Making , Female , Healthy Volunteers , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Postoperative Complications , Prophylactic Mastectomy/adverse effects , Prophylactic Mastectomy/methods , Risk , Time Factors , Unilateral Breast NeoplasmsSubject(s)
Breast Neoplasms , Mammaplasty , Mastectomy, Segmental , Breast Neoplasms/epidemiology , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Female , Humans , Mammaplasty/methods , Mammaplasty/statistics & numerical data , Mastectomy, Segmental/methods , Mastectomy, Segmental/statistics & numerical data , Mastectomy, Segmental/trends , Mastectomy, Simple/methods , Mastectomy, Simple/statistics & numerical data , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Patient Selection , Procedures and Techniques Utilization , Prophylactic Mastectomy/methods , Prophylactic Mastectomy/statistics & numerical data , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Maxillofacial reconstruction with vascularized bone restores facial contour and provides structural support and a foundation for dental rehabilitation. Routine implant placement in such cases, however, remains uncommon. This study aims to determine dental implant survival in patients undergoing vascularized maxillary or mandibular reconstruction through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the literature was queried for implant placement in reconstructed jaws using Medical Subject Headings terms on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane platforms. Weighted implant survivals were calculated for the entire cohort and subcohorts stratified by radiotherapy. Meta-analyses were performed to estimate effect of radiation on implant osseointegration. RESULTS: Of 3965 publications identified, 42 were reviewed, including 1084 patients with 3636 dental implants. Weighted implant survival was 92.2 percent at a median follow-up of 36 months. Survival was 97.0 percent in 269 implants placed immediately in 60 patients versus 89.9 percent in 1897 delayed implants placed in 597 patients, with follow-up of 14 and 40 months, respectively. Dental implants without radiotherapy exposure had better survival than those exposed to radiation (95.3 versus 84.6 percent; p < 0.01) at a median follow-up of 36 months. Meta-analyses showed that radiation significantly increased the risk of implant failure (risk ratio, 4.74; p < 0.01) and suggested that implants placed before radiotherapy trended toward better survival (88.9 percent versus 83.4 percent, p = 0.07; risk ratio, 0.52; p = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Overall implant survival was 92.2 percent; however, radiotherapy adversely impacted outcomes. Implants placed before radiotherapy may demonstrate superior survival than implants placed after.
Subject(s)
Bone Transplantation/methods , Dental Implantation, Endosseous , Mandibular Reconstruction/methods , Osseointegration/physiology , Surgical Flaps/blood supply , Humans , Plastic Surgery ProceduresABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Rates of autologous breast reconstruction are stagnant compared with prosthetic techniques. Insufficient physician payment for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction is one possible explanation. The payment difference between governmental and commercial payers creates a natural experiment to evaluate its impact on method of reconstruction. This study assessed the influence of physician payment differences for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction and implants by insurance type on the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for women undergoing immediate autologous or implant breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014. Univariate analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between different reconstructive approaches. Logistic regression explored the relative impact of insurance type and physician payments on breast reconstruction modality. RESULTS: Of the women in this study, 82.7 percent had commercial and 17.3 percent had governmental insurance. Implants were performed in 80 percent of women, whereas 20 percent underwent microsurgical autologous reconstruction. Women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance were less likely to undergo microsurgical reconstruction (16.4 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.063). Commercial insurance, older age, and obesity independently increased the odds of microsurgical reconstruction (p < 0.01). When comparing median physician payments, governmental payers reimbursed 78 percent and 63 percent less than commercial payers for microsurgical reconstruction ($1831 versus $8435) and implants ($1249 versus $3359, respectively). Stratified analysis demonstrated that as physician payment increased, the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction increased, independent of insurance type (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women with governmental insurance had lower odds of undergoing microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction compared with commercial payers. Regardless of payer, greater reimbursement for microsurgical reconstruction increased the likelihood of microsurgical reconstruction. Current microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction reimbursements may not be commensurate with physician effort when compared to prosthetic techniques. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.
Subject(s)
Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/economics , Mammaplasty/economics , Microsurgery/economics , Adult , Breast Implantation/economics , Breast Implantation/statistics & numerical data , Breast Implants/economics , Breast Implants/statistics & numerical data , Breast Neoplasms/economics , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Female , Free Tissue Flaps/economics , Humans , Mammaplasty/statistics & numerical data , Massachusetts , Mastectomy/economics , Mastectomy/methods , Medicaid/economics , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Microsurgery/statistics & numerical data , Microvessels , Middle Aged , Reoperation/economics , Reoperation/statistics & numerical data , Transplantation, Autologous/economics , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Segmental mandibulectomy impairs health-related quality of life (QoL), by altering speech, mastication, swallowing, and facial aesthetics. Fibula free flap (FFF) used for mandible reconstruction is known to improve outcomes; however, minimal information exists in the literature regarding patient-reported outcomes. We aim to assess how current studies evaluate patient perception following segmental mandibulectomy and FFF mandible reconstruction. METHODS: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a search was conducted for publications involving FFF mandible reconstruction from 2005 to 2017 using PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PsychInfo. RESULTS: Of 2212 articles identified initially, only 7 studies were deemed suitable. Six studies used the University of Washington Quality of Life questionnaire, 3 Oral Health Impact Profile, and 1 used European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Head and Neck (EORTC-H&N35). CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of information in published reports on QoL outcomes following mandible reconstruction with FFF. In the era of patient-centered health care, observations warrant attention from researchers for physician-assessed patient-reported measures to factor in QoL expectation during surgical decision-making about the choice of reconstruction.
Subject(s)
Esthetics , Fibula/transplantation , Free Tissue Flaps , Mandibular Reconstruction , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Quality of Life , Humans , Mandible/surgery , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: One aim of unilateral postmastectomy breast reconstruction (BR) is to restore symmetry with the contralateral breast. As such, unilateral prosthetic reconstruction often requires a contralateral symmetry procedure (CSP). There is sparse literature on the impact of CSPs on long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as satisfaction and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aims to describe PROs following CSPs, using a validated PRO tool, BREAST-Q. The hypothesis is that CSPs are associated with greater patient-reported satisfaction and HRQoL. METHODS: This study is a single institutional analysis of prospectively collected BREAST-Q scores of patients who underwent unilateral prosthetic BR during 2011 to 2015. Women 18 years and older with BREAST-Q scores measured ≥ 9months after BR with or without CSP(s) at the time of expander replacement were included. Patients were classified into four subcohorts: augmentation, mastopexy, reduction, and no symmetry procedure (controls). Sociodemographic, clinical characteristics, and BREAST-Q scores were analyzed. Multivariable linear regression was performed. RESULTS: Of 553 patients, 67 (12%) underwent contralateral augmentation, 68 (12%) mastopexy, 93(17%) reduction, and 325 (59%) were controls. Mean follow-up time was 52 months. Satisfaction with breast and outcomes were higher in the augmentation compared with the control groups (p = 0.01). On multivariable analysis, augmentation remained an independent predictor of satisfaction with breast (p = 0.04). Physical well-being scores were lower for contralateral mastopexy and reduction compared with the controls with a trend toward statistical significance on multivariable models. Psychological and sexual well-being was similar across groups. CONCLUSION: Prosthetic reconstruction with contralateral breast augmentation was associated with greater satisfaction with breast and reconstructive outcome. In contrast, breast reduction and mastopexy procedures demonstrated equivalent satisfaction with breasts compared with controls but may be associated with lower physical well-being. Such information can be used to improve the shared decision-making process for women who choose unilateral prosthetic BR.
Subject(s)
Breast Implants/statistics & numerical data , Breast/anatomy & histology , Esthetics/psychology , Mammaplasty , Mastectomy , Patient Satisfaction/statistics & numerical data , Tissue Expansion Devices/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Breast/surgery , Decision Making , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Mammaplasty/methods , Mammaplasty/psychology , Middle Aged , Patient Reported Outcome Measures , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Flap-based breast reconstruction demands greater operative labor and offers superior patient-reported outcomes compared with implants. However, use of implants continues to outpace flaps, with some suggesting inadequate remuneration as one barrier. This study aims to characterize market variation in the ratio of implants to flaps and assess correlation with physician payments. METHODS: Using the Blue Health Intelligence database from 2009 to 2013, patients were identified who underwent tissue expander (i.e., implant) or free-flap breast reconstruction. The implant-to-flap ratio and physician payments were assessed using quadratic modeling. Matched bootstrapped samples from the early and late periods generated probability distributions, approximating the odds of surgeons switching reconstructive method. RESULTS: A total of 21,259 episodes of breast reconstruction occurred in 122 U.S. markets. The distribution of implant-to-flap ratio varied by market, ranging from the fifth percentile at 1.63 to the ninety-fifth percentile at 43.7 (median, 6.19). Modeling the implant-to-flap ratio versus implant payment showed a more elastic quadratic equation compared with the function for flap-to-implant ratio versus flap payment. Probability modeling demonstrated that switching the reconstructive method from implants to flaps with a 0.75 probability required a $1610 payment increase, whereas switching from flaps to implants at the same certainty occurred at a loss of $960. CONCLUSIONS: There was a correlation between the ratio of flaps to implants and physician reimbursement by market. Switching from implants to flaps required large surgeon payment increases. Despite a relative value unit schedule over twice as high for flaps, current flap reimbursements do not appear commensurate with physician effort.
Subject(s)
Breast Implants/statistics & numerical data , Free Tissue Flaps/statistics & numerical data , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/statistics & numerical data , Mammaplasty/economics , Adult , Blue Cross Blue Shield Insurance Plans/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Insurance Claim Review , Mammaplasty/methods , Mammaplasty/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Tissue Expansion Devices/statistics & numerical data , United StatesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Prosthetic breast reconstruction rates have risen in the United States, whereas autologous techniques have stagnated. Meanwhile, single-institution data demonstrate that physician payments for prosthetic reconstruction are rising, while payments for autologous techniques are unchanged. This study aims to assess payment trends and variation for tissue expander and free flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: The Blue Health Intelligence database was queried from 2009 to 2013, identifying women with claims for breast reconstruction. Trends in the incidence of surgery and physician reimbursement were characterized by method and year using regression models. RESULTS: There were 21,259 episodes of breast reconstruction, with a significant rise in tissue expander cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.09; p < 0.001) and an unchanged incidence of free flap cases (incidence rate ratio, 1.02; p = 0.222). Bilateral tissue expander cases reimbursed 1.32 times more than unilateral tissue expanders, whereas bilateral free flaps reimbursed 1.61 times more than unilateral variants. The total growth in adjusted tissue expander mean payments was 6.5 percent (from $2232 to $2378) compared with -1.8 percent (from $3858 to $3788) for free flaps. Linear modeling showed significant increases for tissue expander reimbursements only. Surgeon payments varied more for free flaps (the 25th to 75th percentile interquartile range was $2243 for free flaps versus $987 for tissue expanders). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of tissue expander cases and reimbursements rose over a period where the incidence of free flap cases and reimbursements plateaued. Reasons for stagnation in free flaps are unclear; however, the opportunity cost of performing this procedure may incentivize the alternative technique. Greater payment variation in autologous reconstruction suggests the opportunity for negotiation with payers.
Subject(s)
Insurance, Health, Reimbursement/trends , Mammaplasty/economics , Mammaplasty/methods , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Breast Implants/economics , Breast Implants/statistics & numerical data , Databases, Factual , Female , Free Tissue Flaps/economics , Free Tissue Flaps/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Linear Models , Mammaplasty/instrumentation , Mammaplasty/trends , Middle Aged , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/trends , Tissue Expansion/economics , Tissue Expansion/instrumentation , Tissue Expansion/trends , Tissue Expansion Devices/economics , Tissue Expansion Devices/statistics & numerical data , United States , Young AdultABSTRACT
Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction in the U.S. continues to experience an upward trend owing to heightened awareness, innovations in reconstructive technique, growing evidence of improved patient-reported outcomes, and shifts in mastectomy patterns. Women with unilateral breast cancer are increasingly electing to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, instead of unilateral mastectomy or opting for breast conservation. The ascent in prophylactic surgeries correlates temporally to a shift toward prosthetic methods of reconstruction as the most common technique. Factors associated with the choice for implants include younger age, quicker recovery time, along with documented safety and enhanced aesthetic outcomes with newer generations of devices. Despite advances in autologous transfer, its growth is constrained by the greater technical expertise required to complete microsurgical transfer and potential barriers such as poor relative reimbursement. The increased use of radiation as an adjuvant treatment for management of breast cancer has created additional challenges for plastic surgeons who need to consider the optimal timing and method of breast reconstruction to perform in these patients.
Subject(s)
Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Mammaplasty/trends , Adipose Tissue/transplantation , Breast Implantation/methods , Breast Implantation/trends , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Female , Humans , Radiotherapy/trends , Transplantation, AutologousSubject(s)
Mammaplasty/methods , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Reoperation/statistics & numerical data , Surgical Flaps/transplantation , Adult , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Operative Time , Postoperative Complications/physiopathology , Postoperative Complications/surgery , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Background Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) is often deferred, when postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) is anticipated, due to high complication rates. Nonetheless, because of robust data supporting improved health-related quality of life associated with reconstruction, physicians and patients may be more accepting of tradeoffs. The current study explores national trends of IBR utilization rates and methods in the setting of PMRT, using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). The study hypothesis is that prosthetic techniques have become the most common method of IBR in the setting of PMRT. Methods NCDB was queried from 2004 to 2013 for women, who underwent mastectomy with or without IBR. Patients were grouped according to PMRT status. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds of IBR in the setting of PMRT. Trend analyses were done for rates and methods of IBR using Poisson regression to determine incidence rate ratios (IRRs). Results In multivariate analysis, radiated patients were 30% less likely to receive IBR (p < 0.05). The rate increase in IBR was greater in radiated compared with nonradiated patients (IRR: 1.12 vs. 1.09). Rates of reconstruction increased more so in radiated compared with nonradiated patients for both implants (IRR 1.15 vs. 1.11) and autologous techniques (IRR 1.08 vs. 1.06). Autologous reconstructions were more common in those receiving PMRT until 2005 (p < 0.05), with no predominant technique thereafter. Conclusion Although IBR remains a relative contraindication, rates of IBR are increasing to a greater extent in patients receiving PMRT. Implants have surpassed autologous techniques as the most commonly used method of breast reconstruction in this setting.
Subject(s)
Breast Implants/statistics & numerical data , Breast Neoplasms/radiotherapy , Breast Neoplasms/surgery , Mammaplasty/methods , Mammaplasty/statistics & numerical data , Radiotherapy, Adjuvant/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Databases, Factual , Decision Making , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Mammaplasty/trends , Mastectomy , Practice Patterns, Physicians' , Quality of Life , Retrospective Studies , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , United StatesABSTRACT
Palatal fistula between the oral and nasal cavities occurs in about 20% of palatal repairs after oncologic resection. Although healing by secondary intention may be employed as an initial strategy, persistent nonhealing symptomatic fistula necessitates intervention. Folded free flap used for primary repair of palatectomy defects enables placement of epithelialized tissue on both the oral and nasal cavities. In case of acquired palatal fistula, a turnover flap can be easily created, based on the free margin of the folded forearm free flap to serve as a reconstructive lifeboat.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been used as a prognostic tool since 2002 to predict pre-transplant mortality. Increasing proportions of transplant candidates with higher MELD scores, combined with improvements in transplant outcomes, mandate the need to study surgical outcomes in patients with MELD scores of ≥40. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal analysis of United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) data on all liver transplantations performed between February 2002 and June 2011 (n = 33,398) stratified by MELD score (<30, 30-39, ≥40) was conducted. The primary outcomes of interest were short- and longterm graft and patient survival. A Kaplan-Meier product limit method and Cox regression were used. A subanalysis using a futile population was performed to determine futility predictors. RESULTS: Of the 33,398 transplant recipients analysed, 74% scored <30, 18% scored 30-39, and 8% scored ≥40 at transplantation. Recipients with MELD scores of ≥40 were more likely to be younger (P < 0.001), non-White and to have shorter waitlist times (P < 0.001). Overall patient survival correlated inversely with increasing MELD score; this trend was consistent for both short-term (30 days and 90 days) and longterm (1, 3 and 5 years) graft and patient survival. In multivariate analysis, increasing age, African-American ethnicity, donor obesity and diabetes were negative predictors of survival. Futility predictors included patient age of >60 years, obesity, peri-transplantation intensive care unit hospitalization with ventilation, and multiple comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Liver transplantation in recipients with MELD scores of ≥40 offers acceptable longterm survival outcomes. Futility predictors indicate the need for prospective follow-up studies to define the population to gain the highest benefit from this precious resource.