Diagnosis and management of breast implant capsule recurrence following mastectomy and subpectoral implant - innovative use of ADM for reconstruction.

It is well reported that patients who have undergone breast augmentation and subsequently develop breast cancer can successfully undergo breast-conserving therapy with preservation of their implants. However, there is a paucity of literature on the radiological investigations and surgical techniques in postmastectomy implant-reconstructed patients who develop recurrences to enable preservation of their implant-based reconstruction whilst effectively treating the local recurrence. The wide adoption of acellular dermal matrix use in prosthetic breast reconstruction in recent years has made radiological evaluation of such patients challenging. Herein presented is a case of a 37-year-old woman where wide local excision of a local recurrence abutting a peri-implant capsule following previous mastectomy and implant-acellular dermal matrix (ADM) reconstruction was performed with successful preservation of reconstruction volume (and shape) using an ADM patch to repair the capsular defect whilst retaining the implant in situ. Radiological investigation facilitated and guided the surgical planning and oncological clearance.

Split-thickness Skin Graft Harvest under Local Anesthetic: A Single Pass Technique.

Adequate local anesthetic, in harvesting a split-thickness skin graft (SSG), traditionally involves multiple passes of a needle across the length and width of the marked donor site. We describe a technique using hyaluronidase to uniformly anaesthetize an SSG donor site with one injection, in one pass, of one needle. 1. Preop application of EMLA cream/AMITOP to the donor site 2. Mix 10 mL 1% lidocaine solution with Adrenaline 1:200,000 with 1 vial of Hyaluronidase 1500 units. The mixture is buffered with 1 mL 8.4% sodium bicarbonate to neutralize acidity and minimize pain. 3. Mark out the SSG donor site 4. Using a 27-G long needle (sterican), enter perpendicular to the skin in the middle of the proximal aspect of the donor site. Inject some local anesthetic subdermally, creating a mound. 5. Change the angle of the needle to 180° and continue to inject the remaining anesthetic along one half of the width of the donor site. 6. Using a rolled 4 × 4 swab, apply firm advancing pressure to distribute the mound across the remaining width and length of marked donor site. 7. As the mound advances, the hyluronidase/anesthetic mixture will distribute uniformly across the donor site within the same plane. The skin blanches secondary to the adrenaline during its distribution. The technique described is a fast, reproducible way to improve patient comfort through the elimination of repeated passes of a needle, distributing the anesthetic uniformly across the donor site, and facilitating the acquisition of an SSG of uniform thickness.

Safeguarding Skin Grafts: An Evidence-Based Summary of Fixation Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Effective skin graft fixation is vital in preventing sheering forces, seroma, and hematoma from compromising graft take. Yet, selecting the ideal technique for securing skin grafts remains a contentious subject, with significant variation in practice existing between surgeons. There is, therefore, benefit to be derived from assessing the literature for evidence-based recommendations to guide the decision-making process. METHODS: A search of Medline and Embase was performed using appropriate key terms, yielding 419 articles. Reference lists were analyzed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were composed. Level I to III studies, as defined by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, that compared skin graft fixation methods were analyzed. Rayyan QCRI was used for abstract and title screening. After full text screening, 41 studies were included for qualitative analysis. All included randomized control trials (RCTs) were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 (ROB2) tool. RESULTS: We identified 4 groups of fixation technique: "tie-over bolster" (TOB), "no TOB," "adhesive glues," and "negative pressure wound therapy" (NPWT). Twelve studies compared TOB with no TOB, with no difference in graft take demonstrated. Sixteen studies compared adhesive glues with traditional methods, with no difference in graft take demonstrated. Thirteen studies compared NPWT with traditional methods, with enhanced graft take demonstrated. Risk of bias was deemed low in 1 of 13 RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current evidence, only NPWT is associated with enhanced graft take. However, there is a scarcity of robust level I evidence comparing different fixation techniques, meaning that strong recommendations cannot be made. We propose examples of hypothesis-driven RCTs, in predetermined clinical settings, based on the theoretical benefits of the techniques that would add value to clinical practice.

A qualitative study of seven simulation models for tendon repairs.

Seven models for tendon repair simulation (urinary catheter, liquorice, fishing lure, dental rolls, drinking straw, silicone sealant and the authors' modification of silicone sealant with Micropore™ tape) were assessed for their performance in a number of domains. The silicone sealant and surgical tape model scored highest overall and for each individual domain. This was significantly higher than all other models with the exception of the silicone sealant alone. The lowest scoring model was the drinking straw model.

Scar orientation: Principles in plastic surgery.

For biopsy proven skin cancers that are deemed to be high risk, a wide local excision (WLE) is recommended to reduce the risk of local recurrence. For this reason, it is pragmatic to account for the likelihood of a WLE at the time of the initial biopsy. We illustrate a staged approach to excision of lesions to facilitate this, bearing in mind the optimal reconstruction is primary closure. In our experience as plastic surgeons, having to perform a locoregional flap or skin graft prevents the opportunity to perform a local anesthetic procedure. This increases the risk of postoperative complications, especially if adjuvant radiotherapy further exposes reconstructed tissues to radiation toxicity. Collectively, this often results in an inferior aesthetic outcome. We value the referrals from allied colleagues and want to share the principles we adhere to when planning an excision biopsy, which aid in the delivery of the optimal reconstruction.

Cosmetic Tourism: a Costly Filler Within the National Health Service Budget or a Missed Financial Opportunity? A Local Cost Analysis and Examination of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Cosmetic tourism is a global commodity, but patients seeking treatment for complications of international cosmetic tourism appear to be on the rise. We calculate the financial burden to a single NHS trust and summarise the literature, reviewing the implications of cosmetic tourism and summarising available guidance to assist surgeons in this ethically challenging, but expanding, field. METHODS: Hospital episodes for patients with complications from cosmetic tourism between January 2016 and March 2017 were retrieved using the patient management system. The coding department provided the episode costs. A literature search was conducted using Medline, EMBASE and HBE identifying 273 English abstracts. The abstracts were reviewed for relevance followed by assessment of the 48 selected full articles by all authors and 17 papers contained relevant, new information. RESULTS: Eleven patients underwent management for complications of cosmetic surgery, most commonly infection, with a sum of 29 inpatient episodes and total cost of £259,732. DISCUSSION: Our study illustrates the management of complications of cosmetic surgery carries a high cost. This is not an experience limited to just this trust in the UK. Internationally, healthcare systems are evolving to raise the safety profile for cosmetic tourists, some going the extra mile to accommodate healthcare tourists, reaping the financial reward. Following the examination of the literature, we query whether NHS trusts should heighten their presence as providers of private services on the international market, eliminating numerous medical-ethic concerns associated with substandard cosmetic tourism. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

Ring removal: an illustrated summary of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: The inability to remove a ring from a finger is a common presentation to Emergency Departments in addition to Orthopaedic and Plastic Surgery Units. This is often complicated by factors including trauma and infection, leading to a superimposed tourniquet effect by the ring, strangulating the subcutaneous tissues. The threat of neurovascular compromise favours early removal of the ring to limit associated morbidity. This article illustrates the common methods within the literature. We offer assessing clinicians an illustrated summary of techniques for removing an incarcerated ring from an extremity and summarise notable considerations to be acknowledged at time of assessment and ring removal. METHODS: A literature search using PubMed and Medline was performed to identify all articles written in English on ring removal. RESULTS: The 12 publications included in this illustrated review describing techniques for removal of an incarcerated ring were published between 1991 and 2018 and include modifications to overcome difficulties due to the composition of the ring or severity of the ring incarceration and penile/scrotal ring removal. CONCLUSION: The ring removal techniques are ring preserving or destructive. The technique used depends on factors including the extent of associated trauma to the digit, evidence of strangulation, ring composition, patient preference and equipment availability. Before an attempt at ring removal, high arm elevation, indirect ice compression of the digit and adequate analgesia maximise chances of success. In cases of strangulation, emergent referral to a specialist is indicated for removal and further management.

Attribution bias underlying burns-induced anxiety symptoms.

INTRODUCTION: Burn injuries are a debilitating cause of morbidity and mortality associated with the long-term impact of psychological factors on quality of life. Accurate assessment of the differential impact of burn sequelae and anxiety is often complicated by the overlap between psychological and somatic symptoms in burns patients. The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is one validated psychometric tool for anxiety assessment. The primary objective of this study is to investigate whether utilising the BAI as a tool to assess for anxiety in burns patients is biased due to the confounding of symptoms of anxiety with the physical sequelae of a burn injury. METHODS: This is a single-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study. The study was conducted in accordance with the UK Good Clinical Practice guidelines (CAPP reference number 506). Patients were recruited over a three-month period from November 2016 to February 2017 and were offered a modified BAI questionnaire to complete. Patients were asked to indicate to what degree they attributed each symptom to their physical injury or their psychological state on a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: 50 patients, comprising 33 females (66%) and 17 males (34%), participated in the study with a median age of 33.5 years (range: 20-88). Date of injury spanned May 1991 to January 2017. Percentage of the total body surface area (% TBSA) affected by burn ranged from 1 to 86%. Patients attributed eight of the 21 self-report items within the BAI as being more physical than psychological in origin. The results reveal a statistical significant difference in patient VAS scores between physical (mean: 34.16, 95% CI: 29.04-39.28) and psychological (mean: 61.2, 95% CI: 56.33-66.17) BAI items, with p<0.0001. In addition, patients with a facial burn injury were more likely to report 'face flushed' (Mann-Whitney U Test, Z=-2.11, p<0.05) and patients with a hand burn injury were more likely to report 'hands trembling' (Mann-Whitney U Test, Z=-2.52, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study found preliminary evidence suggesting that the BAI may, in part, represent misattributed symptoms of cutaneous injury from burns. However, whilst our findings suggest an attribution bias, there is not enough evidence from this data to comment on whether its use should be restricted in burns patients. Further research is needed to formally quantify convergent and divergent validity through structured interviews. In addition, further research using other self-report tools of anxiety in burns patients would be useful to corroborate the prospect of biased and confounded anxiety scores.