Timing of Unplanned Reoperation After Lower Extremity Free Flap Reconstruction: What Are the Roles of Procedure Indication and Defect Etiology?

BACKGROUND: Advancements in lower extremity (LE) microsurgery have allowed for the expansion of indications for LE reconstructions. This project aims to better understand the temporal pattern and risk factors associated with LE free flap failure based on the clinical indication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed all patients undergoing LE free flap reconstruction from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2012-2019 prospectively collected data to determine rates and timing of reoperation. Free flaps were stratified by indication, type, and timing of reoperation. Weibull survival models were used to compare rates of takebacks among time intervals. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors for unplanned reoperation. RESULTS: Four hundred seven of LE free flaps were analyzed. There was a 14.5% rate (59/407) of unplanned reoperation within the first 30 postoperative days (PODs) after surgery. When stratified by the indication necessitating reoperation, patients with an underlying vascular indication had the highest rate of reoperation (40.9%). The reoperation rates were significantly different between indications (P < 0.05) The mean daily proportion of patients experiencing reoperation was highest during POD 0 to 2 (1.47% reoperations per day), which dropped significantly during POD 3 to 10 (0.55% per day) and again during POD 11 to 30 (0.28% per day, P < 0.05). African American race as well as malignant, prosthetic/implant, and wound/infectious indications were significant independent predictors for unplanned reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Lower extremity reconstruction is an important reconstructive option for the coverage of a myriad of defects. Understanding the differences between postoperative reoperation timelines among indication subtypes is important for updated flap monitoring protocols, optimizing ERAS pathways, and beginning dangle protocols.

Significant Reduction in Length of Stay in Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction With Implementation of Multimodal ERAS Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) implementation achieves earlier recovery, reduced hospital length of stay (LOS) and improved outcomes in patients undergoing deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flaps. We sought to review our ERAS protocols and their impact on our patients' LOS compared with the literature. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of a single surgeon's experience from 2017 to 2021 of patients undergoing DIEP free-flap breast reconstruction with LOS as the primary outcome. Complication rates and patient demographics are described as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one patients underwent DIEP free-flap breast reconstruction. After adapting ERAS protocols, there has been a 0.98 [SD, 0.17; confidence interval [CI], -1.3 to -0.64; P < 0.001) day decrease in length of stay comparing pre-ERAS to post-ERAS implementation. Length of stay has routinely decreased from an average discharge on day 4.17 (SD, 1.1; range, 3-8 days) in 2017 to discharge on day 2.91 (SD, 1.1; range, 1-5 days) in 2021. Seventy-five percent of patients in 2021 were hospitalized for 3 or fewer days compared with 75% of patients in 2017 hospitalized for 4 or more days. One patient experienced a flap failure. Our study supports successful discharge on postoperative days 2-3 compared with postoperative days 3-4 in the current literature. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of our ERAS protocol for DIEP free-flap breast reconstruction has resulted in a shorter LOS compared with contemporary literature. The ERAS protocols can be efficiently adopted in microsurgical DIEP breast reconstruction to achieve a shorter LOS without jeopardizing patient outcomes.

Trends of Autologous Free-Flap Breast Reconstruction and Safety during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Autologous free-flap breast reconstruction (ABR) is a valuable surgical option for patients following mastectomy. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a myriad of factors that have affected access to care, hospital logistics, and postoperative outcomes. This study aims to identify differences in patient selection, hospital course and severity, and postoperative outcomes for patients who underwent ABR during and prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients undergoing ABR from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2019 to 2020 database were analyzed to compare sociodemographics, hospital course, and outcomes over the first postoperative month. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors predictive of complications based on the operative year. RESULTS: In total, 3,770 breast free flaps were stratified into two groups based on the timing of reconstruction (prepandemic and pandemic groups). Patients with a diagnosis of disseminated cancer were significantly less likely to undergo ABR during the COVID-19 pandemic. On univariate analysis, there were no significant differences in postoperative complications between the two groups. When controlling for potentially confounding sociodemographic and clinical risk factors, the COVID-19 group was significantly more likely to undergo reoperation compared with the prepandemic group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: When comparing outcomes for patients who underwent ABR prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic, we found a significant increase in the odds of reoperation for those who had ABR during the pandemic. Debridement procedures and exploration for postoperative hemorrhage, thrombosis, or infection increased in the prepandemic group compared to the COVID-19 group. Notably, operative times decreased.

Safe perioperative tamoxifen use in autologous breast free flap reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative tamoxifen remains a valuable therapeutic modality for breast cancer patients. Studies in the existing literature have suggested a potential increased risk of thrombotic complications in autologous breast free flap reconstruction patients exposed to tamoxifen perioperatively. However, several recent publications have questioned the validity of these associations. Therefore, we aim to perform a systematic appraisal of the existing literature to determine if perioperative tamoxifen exposure increases the risk of flap complications in autologous breast-free flap reconstruction patients. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Web of Science, EBSCOHost, ClinicalTrials.gov, and TRIP databases from their inception up to April 2021. Articles analyzing the impact of perioperative tamoxifen in autologous breast free flap patients were included. The outcomes assessed were total flap loss, overall flap complications, thrombotic flap complications, which was defined as the sum of arterial and venous flap thrombi, and systemic venous thromboembolism (VTE). Pooled estimates and relative risk were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: 9294 Articles were screened and 7 were selected for analysis, which included 3669 flaps in 2759 patients. Compared to patients who did not receive tamoxifen perioperatively, those who received tamoxifen did not have an increased risk of thrombotic flap complications (pooled RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.61-1.84), total flap loss (pooled RR 2.17; 95% CI 0.79-5.95), overall flap complications (pooled RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.76-1.41), or systemic VTE (pooled RR 1.93; 95% CI 0.72-5.13). The heterogeneity of the studies was not significant for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The purpose of this study was to update the current understanding of the impact of perioperative tamoxifen on autologous breast free flap reconstruction outcomes. The existing literature supports that the perioperative continuation of tamoxifen in breast free flap patients is not associated with an increased risk of thrombotic flap complications, total flap loss, overall flap complications, or systemic VTE.

Critical Importance of the First Postoperative Days After Head and Neck Free Flap Reconstruction: An Analysis of Timing of Reoperation Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database.

BACKGROUND: Head and neck free flaps remain associated with considerable rates of take-back and prolonged hospital length of stay. However, there have been no studies on a national level benchmarking the timeline and predictors of head and neck free flap take-back. METHODS: Patients undergoing head and neck free flap reconstruction from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2012-2019 database were analyzed to determine the rates of take-back. Timing and rates of unplanned head and neck free flap take-backs were stratified by tissue type and postoperative day (POD) over the first month. Weibull survival models were used to compare rates of take-backs among time intervals. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the independent predictors of take-back. RESULTS: Three thousand nine hundred six head and neck free flaps were analyzed. The mean daily proportion of patients experiencing take-back during PODs 0 to 1 was 0.95%; this dropped significantly to a mean daily proportion of 0.54% during POD 2 (P < 0.01). In addition, there were significant drops in take-back when comparing POD 2 (0.54%) to POD 3 (0.26%) and also when comparing POD 4 (0.20%) with PODs 5 to 30 (0.032% per day) (P < 0.05). The soft tissue and osseous flap populations demonstrated a similar trend in unplanned take-back. CONCLUSION: This is the first national study to specifically analyze the timing of take-back in the head and neck reconstruction population. These data highlight the importance of flap monitoring during the first 5 PODs, with ERAS pathway optimization aiming for discharge by the end of the first postoperative week.

Optimizing Abdominoplasty Surgical Site Morbidity Profiling Through an Effective and Nationally Validated Risk Scoring System.

BACKGROUND: Abdominoplasty complication rates are among the highest for cosmetic surgery. We sought to create a validated scoring system to predict the likelihood of wound complications after abdominoplasty using a national multi-institutional database. METHODS: Patients who underwent abdominoplasty in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2007-2019 database were analyzed for surgical site complications, a composite outcome of wound disruption, and surgical site infections. The cohort was randomly divided into a 60% testing and a 40% validation sample. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of complications using the testing sample (n = 11,294). The predictors were weighted according to ß coefficients to develop an integer-based clinical risk score. This system was validated using receiver operating characteristic analysis of the validation sample (n = 7528). RESULTS: A total of 18,822 abdominoplasty procedures were identified. The proportion of patients who developed a composite surgical site complication was 6.8%. Independent risk factors for composite surgical site complication included inpatient procedure (P < 0.01), smoking (P < 0.01), American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥3 (P < 0.01), and body mass index ≥25.0 and ≤18.0 kg/m2 (P < 0.01). African American race was a protective factor against surgical site complications (P < 0.01). The factors were integrated into a scoring system, ranging from -5 to 42, and the receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.71. CONCLUSIONS: We present a validated scoring system for postoperative 30-day surgical site morbidity after abdominoplasty. This system will enable surgeons to optimize patient selection to decrease morbidity and unnecessary healthcare expenditure.

In the Age of Social Media, How Does the Public Choose a Plastic Surgeon? A Crowdsourcing Analysis of Major Deciding Factors.

BACKGROUND: Patients consider many factors when selecting a plastic surgeon. Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of board certification and reputation in this decision. Despite this, there is a paucity of knowledge on the role that cost of procedure, social media, and surgeon training have on the decision-making process. METHODS: The authors' study used a population-based survey administered by Amazon Mechanical Turk. Adults 18 years and older and residing in the United States were asked to rank the importance of 36 factors from 0 (least important) to 10 (most important) when selecting a plastic surgeon. RESULTS: A total of 369 responses were analyzed. The mean age of respondents was 36.9 years (SD, 10.9 years), and 174 participants (47.2%) were female. Of those surveyed, 216 (55.0%) had previously undergone plastic surgery, and all respondents were considering plastic surgery either at the time of survey or in the future. The most common first step for respondents in identifying a plastic surgeon was a web-based search (32.2%). The top three most important factors in selecting a plastic surgeon were surgeon's experience with the desired procedure (7.48), surgeon's board certification (7.38), and surgeon's years in practice (7.36). The three least important factors were the surgeon's race (5.43), number of social media posts (5.62), and television appearances (5.64). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' survey provides insight into the role that different elements play in the decision of selecting a plastic surgeon in the United States. Understanding how patients select a plastic surgeon can help surgeons optimize these elements in their practices.

Impact and Implementation of Plastic Surgery Interest Groups: National Survey of Plastic Surgery Interest Group Leadership.

Background: Plastic surgery interest groups (PSIGs) provide an invaluable opportunity to enhance medical students' exposure to and knowledge of plastic surgery. Despite this, there have been no studies that provide information on the formation of these groups as well as the aspects that make for a productive PSIG. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed by email via RedCAP to US medical students who hold leadership positions within their medical school's PSIG. Participants were asked baseline medical school information, the structure of their interest group, and perspectives on the most impactful and challenging components of their interest group. Results: Sixteen members (27.6%) of PSIG leadership completed the survey. Eighty percent reported having a membership of greater than 20 students. Fifty percent of the PSIGs were led by advisors who were medical school or hospital-affiliated faculty. Sixty-nine percent of groups were allocated a predetermined amount of money to fund activities and events throughout the academic year. Based on member feedback, groups reported that interactions with plastic surgery faculty, mentorship opportunities, and research opportunities were the most impactful and beneficial components of their PSIG. Forty-four percent reported that the biggest challenge faced by their PSIG was having a small active member group, followed by a lack of funding. Conclusion: Our study provides an in-depth look at the current structure and impact of PSIGs in the United States. It also provides a framework for medical schools that wish to start a PSIG and suggestions for established groups who wish to revitalize their PSIG structure.

Contexte: Les groupes d'intérêt en chirurgie plastique (GICP) offrent la possibilité inestimable d'améliorer l'exposition et les connaissances des étudiants envers la chirurgie plastique. Malgré cela, il n'y a pas eu d'études apportant d'information sur la formation de ces groupes ainsi que sur les éléments qui font qu'un GICP soit productif. Methodes: Une enquête anonyme a été distribuée par courriel via RedCAP aux étudiants en médecine des États-Unis qui ont un rôle de leadership au sein du GICP de leur école de médecine. Les questions posées aux participants incluaient des demandes d'information basique sur l'école de médecine, la structure de leur groupe d'intérêt et des points de vue sur les éléments de leur groupe d'intérêt les plus stimulants et ceux ayant le plus d'impact. Résultats: Seize membres (27.6%) du leadership de GICP ont répondu à l'enquête. Quatre-vingts pour cent ont déclaré avoir plus de 20 étudiants adhérents. Cinquante pour cent des GICP étaient menés par des conseillers qui étaient des enseignants de l'école de médecine ou affiliés à un hôpital. Soixante-neuf pour cent des groupes recevaient des sommes prédéterminées pour financer leurs activités et événements tout au long de l'année universitaire. En fonction du retour d'informations des membres, les groupes ont déclaré que les interactions avec les enseignants en chirurgie plastique, des occasions de mentorat et des possibilités de recherchez étaient les éléments les plus bénéfiques et ayant le plus d'impact de leur CGIP. Quarante-quatre pour cent que le plus grand défi de leur CGIP était d'abord d'avoir un petit groupe de membres actifs, et ensuite de manquer de financement. Conclusion: Notre étude procure un regard approfondi sur la structure actuelle et l'impact des CGIP aux États-Unis. Elle fournit aussi un cadre pour les facultés de médecine qui souhaitent lancer un CGIP et des suggestions pour les groupes établis qui souhaitent revitaliser la structure de leur CGIP.

Perspectives on the Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA): A Survey of 2021-2022 Integrated Plastic Surgery Applicants.

The Plastic Surgery Common Application (PSCA) was introduced as a free and specialty-specific application for plastic surgery applicants in the 2020-2021 cycle. Now in its second year, the PSCA is being piloted by all integrated residency programs with future plans to replace Electronic Residency Application Service (ERAS) in the 2022-2023 cycle. This study aimed to explore applicant perspectives related to the PSCA and ERAS applications. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed to integrated plastic surgery residency applicants from the 2021-2022 application cycle. Participants were asked to provide basic demographic information, their perspectives of the PSCA, and overall application preference. Results: One hundred forty (43.1%) applicants completed the survey. Nearly, 63% of applicants responded "slightly well" or "not well at all" regarding their ability to highlight at least one aspect of their application. Forty-one percent of applicants believed ERAS best highlighted the strengths of their application compared with 27% who believed their strengths were better highlighted by the PSCA. Seventy-nine percent reported the cost savings associated with the PSCA were "very" or "extremely important." Overall, 63% of respondents reported a preference to apply with the PSCA alone. Conclusions: This is the first study to provide insight on applicants' perspectives of the PSCA. Although the majority preferred applying with the PSCA, there may be challenges with transitioning to this application solely. Future iterations of the PSCA may aim to ameliorate functionality concerns, optimize application content, and incorporate plastic surgery-specific information that may be important to selection committees.