Impact of Obesity on Outcomes in Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Increased rates of both breast cancer and obesity have resulted in more obese women seeking breast reconstruction. Studies demonstrate that these women are at increased risk for perioperative complications. A systematic review was conducted to assess the outcomes in obese women who underwent breast reconstruction following mastectomy. METHODS: Cochrane, PUBMED, and EMBASE electronic databases were screened and data were extracted from included studies. The clinical outcomes assessed were surgical complications, medical complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, reoperation rate, and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Out of 33 studies met the inclusion criteria for the review and 29 provided enough data to be included in the meta-analysis (71,368 patients, 20,061 of whom were obese). Obese women (body mass index > 30 kg/m2) were 2.29 times more likely to experience surgical complications (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.19-2.39; p < 0.00001), 2.89 times more likely to have medical complications (95% CI 2.50-3.35; p < 0.00001), and had a 1.91 times higher risk of reoperation (95% CI 1.75-2.07; p < 0.00001). The most common complication, wound dehiscence, was 2.51 times more likely in obese women (95% CI 1.80-3.52; p < 0.00001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed that obese women were more likely to experience surgical complications (risk ratio 2.36, 95% CI 2.22-2.52; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that obesity increases the risk of complications in both implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Additional prospective and observational studies are needed to determine if the weight reduction prior to reconstruction reduces the perioperative risks associated with obesity.

The Need for Core Outcome Reporting in Autologous Fat Grafting for Breast Reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest in autologous fat grafting (AFG) for breast reconstruction. This systematic review examines the range of outcomes used across studies of AFG, their definitions and whether there is a need for a core outcome set to aid reporting. METHODS: Following the protocol of our systematic review, a search of 20 databases (1986 to March 2014) returned 35 studies which met the inclusion criteria. These were assessed independently by two authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Of the 35 studies, 27 (77%) were case series, 5 (14.3%) were cohort studies, and 3 (8.6%) were case reports. A total of 51 different outcomes were reported. These studies each reported a median of five separate outcomes (range, 2-14), of which a median of 3 outcomes were defined (range, 0-14). A median of 2 outcomes per paper were prespecified in the study methods (range, 0-12) and a median of only 2 outcomes per paper (range, 0-12) were both defined and prespecified. The most commonly reported outcome in studies of AFG was that of "operative details," reported by 26 studies, and eight different outcome definitions were used. "Cancer recurrence" was reported by 20 studies, with the use of 10 different outcome definitions. Overall, there was a poor proportion of defined and prespecified outcomes that employed a wide range of different outcome definitions. In addition only 14/35 studies stated the number of patients lost to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for a core outcomes set for AFG to the breast to minimise outcome and reporting bias and aid evidence synthesis. Our future research will focus in this direction, titled VOGUE or Valid Outcomes for the Grafting of AUtologous Fat to the BrEast study. We invite all those interested to get in touch with the lead author.

Evidence-Based Plastic Surgery: Its Rise, Importance, and a Practical Guide.

There is a perfect storm developing in 21st century healthcare; rising complexity and patient expectations in the context of fiscal restraint. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) may be the best-kept secret in dealing with the "storm." Such an approach prefers management pathways that deliver better outcomes at less relative cost. In this article, the rise of EBM, its significance, a guide to practicing it, and its future in the field of plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery are presented.

Surveillance and quality improvement in the United Kingdom: is there a meeting point?

Recent high profile failures within the National Health Service of England and Wales have highlighted the need for surveillance of quality and performance. Mortality is the most commonly used metric, assessed at the hospital or trust level. However overall mortality can mask where the failures lie and even if they exist. Continuous surveillance at a granular level is needed, especially in surgery where interventions need to be safe, reliable and efficacious but so does the coordination of care along the entire patient pathway with robust protocols and mechanisms in place to prevent 'failure to rescue' and to optimise patient outcomes. There is an expanding body of surveillance tools available for surgical practice and these are beginning to show merit. The Care Quality Commission, who monitor services, increasingly through ongoing surveillance as well as inspections, should work more closely with local quality improvement efforts and become a vector for care excellence, actively involved with spreading best practice throughout the entire NHS and not just for identifying the 'bad apples'.

The validity of surgical simulation.

Simulation is playing an increasingly important role in training surgeons. As hours between registrar and consultant grades have decreased, trainees are required to train smarter. While the majority of simulation is limited, advances in computing and design are enabling ever more realistic, varied simulation.

The STROCSS 2024 guideline: strengthening the reporting of cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: First released in 2017, the STROCSS guidelines have become integral for promoting high-quality reporting of observational research in surgery. However, regular updates are essential to ensure they remain relevant and of value to surgeons. Building on the 2021 updates, the authors have developed the STROCSS 2024 guidelines. This timely revision aims to address residual reporting gaps, assimilate recent advances, and further strengthen observational study quality across all surgical disciplines. METHODS: A core steering committee compiled proposed changes to update the STROCSS 2021 guidelines based on identified gaps in prior iterations. An expert panel of surgical research leaders then evaluated the proposed changes for inclusion. A Delphi consensus exercise was used. Proposals that scored between 7-9 on a nine-point Likert agreement scale, by ≥70% of Delphi participants, were integrated into the STROCSS 2024 checklist. RESULTS: In total, 46 of 56 invited participants (82%) completed the Delphi survey and hence participated in the development of STROCSS 2024. All suggested amendments met the criteria for inclusion, indicating a high level of agreement among the Delphi group. All proposed items were therefore integrated into the final revised checklist. CONCLUSION: The authors present the updated STROCSS 2024 guidelines, which have been developed through expert consensus to further enhance the transparency and reporting quality of observational research in surgery.

The SCARE 2023 guideline: updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines were first published in 2016 as a tool for surgeons to document and report their surgical cases in a standardised and comprehensive manner. However, with advances in technology and changes in the healthcare landscape, it is important to revise and update these guidelines to ensure they remain relevant and valuable for surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced through a Delphi consensus exercise. Members of the SCARE 2020 guidelines Delphi group, editorial board members, and peer reviewers were invited to participate. Potential contributors were contacted by e-mail. An online survey was completed to indicate their agreement with the proposed changes to the guideline items. RESULTS: A total of 54 participants were invited to participate and 44 (81.5%) completed the survey. There was a high degree of agreement among reviewers, with 36 items (83.7%) meeting the threshold for inclusion. CONCLUSION: Through a completed Delphi consensus exercise we present the SCARE 2023 guidelines. This will provide surgeons with a comprehensive and up-to-date tool for documenting and reporting their surgical cases while highlighting the importance of patient-centred care.

Impact of diabetes on outcomes in breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As rates of breast cancer and type II diabetes increase, so does the number of women with diabetes undergoing breast reconstruction (BR). Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of postoperative complications. This meta-analysis seeks to evaluate the post-operative outcomes of women with diabetes who underwent BR following mastectomy. METHOD: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The EMBASE, PUBMED, and MEDLINE electronic databases were searched from inception to November 1, 2020 for studies published in English. Outcomes evaluated were overall complications, surgical complications, and longer hospital stay. Subgroup analysis investigated outcomes, such as implant/flap failure, infection, and necrosis. RESULTS: Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria and 38 provided data to be included in the meta-analysis. A total of 151,585 patients were included, of which 9299 had diabetes. Women with diabetes were more likely to experience overall complications (11.6% vs 5.6%; p<0.0001) and surgical complications (7.7% vs 3.3%; p<0.0001), and were more likely to have a prolonged hospital stay (p = 0.04) than women without diabetes. Subgroup analysis showed that implant loss (2.5% vs 1.6%; p = 0.0003), infection (6.8% vs 2.5%; p<0.0001) and necrosis (23.8% vs 6.5; p = 0.001) were significantly higher in women with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that diabetes mellitus increases the risk of complications in patients with breast cancer undergoing BR after mastectomy. Prospective studies are required to establish whether diabetes that is well-controlled prior to reconstruction, including diabetes that is paired with adjuvant radiation therapy, reduces the perioperative risks.

The SCARE 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers, in order to increase robustness and transparency in reporting surgical cases. They must be kept up to date in order to drive forwards reporting quality. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members were invited from the previous DELPHI group, as well as editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group completed an online survey to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. RESULTS: A total of 54 surgical experts agreed to participate and 53 (98%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the new 2020 guideline. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the SCARE Group, with all modified SCARE items receiving over 70% scores 7-9. CONCLUSION: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved SCARE Checklist is now presented.

The PROCESS 2020 Guideline: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasESeries in Surgery (PROCESS) Guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The PROCESS Guidelines were first published in 2016 and were last updated in 2018. They provide a structure for reporting surgical case series in order to increase reporting robustness and transparency, and are used and endorsed by authors, journal editors and reviewers alike. In order to drive forwards reporting quality, they must be kept up to date. As such, we have updated these guidelines via a DELPHI consensus exercise. METHODS: The updated guidelines were produced via a DELPHI consensus exercise. Members from the previous DELPHI group were again invited, alongside editorial board members and peer reviewers of the International Journal of Surgery and the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. An online survey was completed by this expert group to indicate their agreement with proposed changes to the checklist items. RESULTS: A total of 53 surgical experts agreed to participate and 49 (92%) completed the survey. The responses and suggested modifications were incorporated into the previous 2018 guidelines. There was a high degree of agreement amongst the PROCESS Group, with all but one of the PROCESS items receiving over 70% of scores ranging 7-9. CONCLUSION: A DELPHI consensus exercise was completed and an updated and improved PROCESS Checklist is now presented.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in skin graft surgery: A protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is little evidence-based guidance on the use of prophylactic antibiotics in skin surgery; whilst antibiotics may protect against surgical site infections (SSI), they have associated side effects, increase the risk of adverse events, and can propagate antibiotic resistance. We present a protocol for a systematic review to establish whether the benefit of prophylactic antibiotics overrides the risk, for patients undergoing autograft surgery. METHODS: The systematic review will be registered a priori on researchregistry.com and will be conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). A search strategy will be devised to investigate 'skin graft surgery and use of antibiotics'. The following electronic databases will be searched, 1979-2018: PubMed, MEDLINE®, EMBASE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SciELO, The Cochrane Library, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effect (DARE), the Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, the NHS Economic Evaluation Databases and Cochrane Groups, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials Database, the World Health Organisation (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, UpToDate.com, NHS Evidence and the York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Grey literature will be searched. All comparative study designs reporting on the use of antibiotics in skin graft surgery will be considered for inclusion, namely randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two trained independent teams will screen all titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full texts, for eligibility. Data will be extracted under standardized extraction fields into a preformatted database. Note will be made of the indication for skin graft surgery (traumatic, congenital, malignant, benign), the graft site (head & neck, trunk, upper extremities, lower extremities), type of skin graft (split thickness, full-thickness). The primary outcome will be occurrence of SSI at the donor and/or recipient sites. Secondary outcomes, if reported, will include: length of hospital stay, revision surgery required, cost of medical care, time to wound healing and cosmetic outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at national and international meetings within fields of plastic, reconstructive, and aesthetic surgery. The work will be disseminated electronically and in print. Brief reports of the review and findings will be disseminated to interested parties through email and direct communication. The review aims to guide healthcare practice and policy.

A protocol for the development of reporting guidelines for IDEAL stage studies.

BACKGROUND: New surgical procedures, devices and other complex interventions need robust evaluation for safety, efficacy and effectiveness. The IDEAL Framework and Recommendations lay out a pathway to achieve this and offer general guidance on how studies at each stage should be reported. However, researchers require some assistance in translating theory into practice. We will develop a set of reporting guidelines for each IDEAL stage where deemed necessary through Delphi consensus methodology. METHODS: For each IDEAL stage requiring a new set of reporting guidelines, we will use the following process. We will search for the relevant reporting guidelines already in existence and use principles developed by the IDEAL Collaboration to compile the initial long list of potential checklist items. In each round, the participants will rate the importance of reporting each element on a nine-point Likert scale as proposed by the GRADE group. Sequential rounds and questionnaire administration and completion will take place until a final set of items is produced. There will then be a final consensus meeting of a working group to condense and refine the final recommendations for the reporting guidelines.

The SCARE 2018 statement: Updating consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The SCARE Guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case reports. Since their publication, SCARE guidelines have been widely endorsed by authors, journal editors, and reviewers, and have helped to improve reporting transparency of case reports across a range of surgical specialties. In order to encourage further progress in reporting quality, the SCARE guidelines must themselves be kept up to date. We completed a Delphi consensus exercise to update the SCARE guidelines. METHODS: A Delphi consensus exercise was undertaken. All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate, in addition to researchers who have previously studied case reports, and editors from the International Journal of Surgery Case Reports. The expert group was sent an online questionnaire where they were asked to rate their agreement with proposed changes to each of the 24 items. RESULTS: 56 people agreed to participate and 45 (80%) invitees completed the survey which put forward modifications to the original guideline. The collated responses resulted in modifications. There was high agreement amongst the expert group. CONCLUSION: A modified and improved SCARE checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed. The SCARE 2018 Statement: Updating Consensus Surgical CAse REport (SCARE) Guidelines.

The PROCESS 2018 statement: Updating Consensus Preferred Reporting Of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: The PROCESS guidelines were published in 2016 to provide a structure for reporting surgical case series. The PROCESS guidelines have since been widely endorsed by a number of journals. The requirement to report compliance with each item outlined in the PROCESS statement has improved the reporting transparency of case series across a number of surgical specialties. Here, we undertook a new Delphi consensus exercise to update the PROCESS guidelines. METHODS: All members of the previous Delphi group were invited to participate. In addition, researchers, editors, and reviewers who have previously published or reviewed case series with the International Journal of Surgery were invited to collaborate. An online questionnaire was sent to participants asking them to rate their agreement with amendments to each of the 29 items. RESULTS: 140 experts were invited to participate, 56 people agreed to participate, and 45 (80%) recipients completed the survey. There was a high level of agreement amongst the expert group, and unanimous consensus was reached in the first round. All except three proposed items were accepted, and the original guidelines were modified accordingly. CONCLUSION: A modified and improved PROCESS checklist is presented, after a Delphi consensus exercise was completed.

Analysis of the first 2645 registrations at the research registry®: A global repository for all study types involving human participants.

BACKGROUND: The Declaration of Helsinki has called for the registration of all research studies involving human participants. Despite this, prior registries did not allow registration certain study types, or retrospective registration. The Research Registry® (www.researchregistry.com) was established in 2015 to provide a venue of registration for any study involving human participants. METHODS: and analysis: This retrospective database analysis describes the first 3000 registrations received by the Research Registry®. Since the launch of the Registry in 2015, we have collected data on each registration and excluded inappropriate registrations through a weekly curation process. The characteristics of all studies registered is presented. Each registration was marked against a quality score by two researchers acting independently, and we describe how this has changed over time. No ethical approval was required for this data only study including no human participants. RESULTS: Of 3000 registrations, we included 2645 that were submitted to the registry between February 2015 and October 2017. The number of registrations increased year on year, and we now receive between 60 and 80 registrations per month. One fifth of registrations were from China (537 [20.3%]). Retrospective observational studies were most commonly registered (1125 [42.5%]), and studies included in excess of 20 million patients (median 80 [IQR:25-200]). The quality score of registrations improved over the time (Kruskal-Wallis p < 0.05), and the 'control/comparator' component of the quality score was most poorly completed (completed by 1199 [54%]). CONCLUSION: The Research Registry® has received registrations on over 2500 registrations, including in excess of 20 million patients, with the quality of registrations improving over time. Retrospective observational studies and case series are the most commonly registered.

Validated Outcomes in the Grafting of Autologous Fat to the Breast: The VOGUE Study. Development of a Core Outcome Set for Research and Audit.

BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting is an important part of the reconstructive surgeon's toolbox when treating women affected by breast cancer and subsequent tumor extirpation. The debate over safety and efficacy of autologous fat grafting continues within the literature. However, work performed by the authors' group has shown significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting. Core outcome sets have been shown to reduce heterogeneity in outcome reporting. The authors' goal was to develop a core outcome set for autologous fat grafting in breast reconstruction. METHODS: The authors published their protocol a priori. A Delphi consensus exercise among key stakeholders was conducted using a list of outcomes generated from their previous work. These outcomes were divided into six domains: oncologic, clinical, aesthetic and functional, patient-reported, process, and radiologic. RESULTS: In the first round, 55 of 78 participants (71 percent) completed the Delphi consensus exercise. Consensus was reached on nine of the 13 outcomes. The clarity of the results and lack of additional suggested outcomes deemed further rounds to be unnecessary. CONCLUSIONS: The VOGUE Study has led to the development of a much-needed core outcome set in the active research front and clinical area of autologous fat grafting. The authors hope that clinicians will use this core outcome set to audit their practice, and that researchers will implement these outcomes in their study design and reporting of autologous fat grafting outcomes. The authors encourage journals and surgical societies to endorse and encourage use of this core outcome set to help refine the scientific quality of the debate, the discourse, and the literature. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, V.