MicroRNA-409-3p/BTG2 signaling axis improves impaired angiogenesis and wound healing in obese mice.

Wound healing is facilitated by neoangiogenesis, a complex process that is essential to tissue repair in response to injury. MicroRNAs are small, noncoding RNAs that can regulate the wound healing process including stimulation of impaired angiogenesis that is associated with type-2 diabetes (T2D). Expression of miR-409-3p was significantly increased in the nonhealing skin wounds of patients with T2D compared to the non-wounded normal skin, and in the skin of a murine model with T2D. In response to high glucose, neutralization of miR-409-3p markedly improved EC growth and migration in human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs), promoted wound closure and angiogenesis as measured by increased CD31 in human skin organoids, while overexpression attenuated EC angiogenic responses. Bulk mRNA-Seq transcriptomic profiling revealed BTG2 as a target of miR-409-3p, where overexpression of miR-409-3p significantly decreased BTG2 mRNA and protein expression. A 3' untranslated region (3'-UTR) luciferase assay of BTG2 revealed decreased luciferase activity with overexpression of miR-409-3p, while inhibition had opposite effects. Mechanistically, in response to high glucose, miR-409-3p deficiency in ECs resulted in increased mTOR phosphorylation, meanwhile BTG-anti-proliferation factor 2 (BTG2) silencing significantly decreased mTOR phosphorylation. Endothelial-specific and tamoxifen-inducible miR-409-3p knockout mice (MiR-409IndECKO ) with hyperglycemia that underwent dorsal skin wounding showed significant improvement of wound closure, increased blood flow, granulation tissue thickness (GTT), and CD31 that correlated with increased BTG2 expression. Taken together, our results show that miR-409-3p is a critical mediator of impaired angiogenesis in diabetic skin wound healing.

Is Oncoplastic Surgery Safe in High-Risk Breast Cancer Phenotypes?

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) has increased in popularity over the recent years. It is a form of breast conservation surgery allowing for larger partial mastectomy (PM) resections followed by either volume displacement or volume replacement reconstruction techniques. However, there is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness and safety of OPS with radiotherapy (OPS + RT) in high-risk breast cancer phenotypes, such as triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) and HER2 positive (HER2+) patients. Our aim was to compare the breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and postoperative surgical complications in OPS + RT compared to PM alone with radiation (PM + RT) and total mastectomy (MTX) without radiotherapy (MTX-RT). METHODS: Patient data were analyzed from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2020. Patients were stratified according to the type of surgery. Cox regression analysis was performed to assess prognostic factors of BCSS. RESULTS: A total of 24 621 patients with high-risk breast cancer phenotypes were identified, 180 underwent OPS + RT; 13 402, PM + RT; and 11 039 MTX-RT. OPS + RT was more frequently performed in younger (mean age of 65.53 years, SD: 9.29, p < 0.001), non-Hispanic White (90.5% vs. 77.7% vs. 76.3%) and single women (17.9% vs. 12.1% vs. 13.3%). MTX-RT was usually performed in patients with high histological grade, TNBC, and higher stages. Overall complication rates were higher in the MTX-RT, compared to OPS + RT and PM + RT, 2%, 1.1%, and 0.7%, respectively, p < 0.001. Rates of hematoma and surgical site infections were higher in the MTX-RT group. With a median follow-up of 46 months, OPS + RT had better BCSS rates at 5 years compared to PM + RT and MTX-RT (97.1% vs. 94.7% vs. 89.8%, p < 0.001). MTX-RT was found to be an independent prognostic factor of worse BCSS compared to OPS + RT (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.584; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.005-7.171), while PM + RT had no difference compared to OPS + RT (HR = 1.670, 95% CI: 0.624-4.469). CONCLUSIONS: OPS is a safe breast surgical option in patients with HER2+ and TNBC. Patients with high-risk phenotypes who underwent OPS + RT and have similar BCSS and complication rates compared to standard breast surgical options. As such, OPS should be considered as an option whenever breast conservation surgery is being discussed.

Oncoplastic Surgery Outcomes in the Older Breast Cancer Population: A Matched-Cohort Comparison Study.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS) is a form of breast conservation surgery (BCS) that involves a partial mastectomy followed by immediate volume displacement or volume replacement surgical techniques. To date, there are few studies evaluating OBS in older patients. Therefore, we sought to determine if outcomes differed between patients 65 years and older versus younger patients who underwent oncoplastic surgical procedures. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all oncoplastic breast operations within a single health system from 2015 to 2021. Patients were stratified by age, with patients 65 years and older (OBS65+) identified and then matched with younger patients (OBS <65) based on BMI. Primary outcomes were positive margin rates and overall complication rates; secondary outcomes were locoregional recurrence (LR), distant recurrence (DR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and long-term breast asymmetry. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients underwent OBS over the 6-year period, with 22% being OBS65+. Preoperatively, older patients experienced higher American Anesthesia (ASA) scores, Charlson Co-morbidity index (CCI) scores, and higher rates of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and grade 3 breast ptosis. Despite this, no significant differences were found between primary or secondary outcomes compared to younger patients undergoing the same procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Oncoplastic breast reconstruction is a safe option in patients 65 years and older, with overall similar recurrence rates, positive margin rates, and survival when compared to younger patients. Although the older cohort of patients had greater preoperative risk, there was no difference in overall surgical complication rates or outcomes. Supporting the argument that all oncoplastic breast reconstruction techniques should be offered to eligible patients, irrespective of age.

External Validation of the Breast Cancer Surgery Risk Calculator (BCSRc): A Predictive Model for Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: The breast cancer surgical risk calculator (BCSRc) is a prognostic tool that determines a breast cancer patient's unique risk of acute complications following each possible surgical intervention. When used in the preoperative setting, it can help to stratify patients with an increased complication risk and enhance the patient-physician informed decision-making process. The objective of this study was to externally validate the four models used in the BCSRc on a large cohort of patients who underwent breast cancer surgery. METHODS: The BCSRc was developed by using a retrospective cohort from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database from 2005 to 2018. Four models were built by using logistic regression methods to predict the following composite outcomes: overall, infectious, hematologic, and internal organ complications. This study obtained a new cohort of patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program by utilizing participant user files from 2019 to 2020. The area under the curve, brier score, and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit test measured model performance, accuracy, and calibration, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 192,095 patients met inclusion criteria in the development of the BCSRc, and the validation cohort included 60,144 women. The area under the curve during external validation for each model was approximately 0.70. Accuracy, or Brier scores, were all between 0.04 and 0.003. Model calibration using the Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic found all p-values > 0.05. All of these model coefficients will be updated on the web-based BCSRc platform: www.breastcalc.org . CONCLUSIONS: The BCSRc continues to show excellent external-validation measures. Collectively, this prognostic tool can enhance the decision-making process, help stratify patients with an increased complication risk, and improve expectant management.

Single Versus Dual Surgeon Approaches to Oncoplastic Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is traditionally performed using a dual surgeon (DS) approach that involves both a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon. It is also performed using a single surgeon (SS) approach with a surgeon trained in both breast surgical oncology and plastic surgery. We sought to determine if outcomes differed between SS versus DS OPS approaches. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all OPS performed in a single health system over a 6-y period by either an SS or a DS approach. Primary outcomes were rates of positive margins and the overall complication rate; secondary outcomes were loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were identified; 117 were SS cases and 100 were DS cases. Baseline preoperative patient characteristics were similar between the two groups as there was no difference in mean Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (P = 0.07). There was no difference in tumor stage (P = 0.09) or nodal status (P = 0.31). Rates of positive margins were not significantly different (10.9% (SS) versus 9% (DS); P = 0.81), nor were rates of complications (11.1% (SS) versus 15% (DS); P = 0.42). Rates of locoregional recurrence were also not significantly different (1.7% (SS) versus 0% (DS); P = 0.5). Disease-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different at 1-y, 3-y, and 5-y time points (P = 0.20 and P = 0.23, respectively) although follow-up time was not sufficient for definitive analysis regarding survival. CONCLUSIONS: Both SS and DS approaches to OPS have similar outcomes with regards to positive margin rates and surgical complication rates and are comparably safe.

The impact of body mass index on oncoplastic breast surgery: A multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Obesity has nearly tripled in the last 50 years. During the last decades, oncoplastic breast surgery has become an important choice in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. An association exists between higher body mass index (BMI) and wound complications for major operations, but there is scarce literature on oncoplastic surgery. Hence, our aim was to compare the complication rates among patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery, stratified by BMI. METHODS: Patient data were analyzed from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (NSQIP) for oncoplastic breast procedures (2005-2020). Patients were stratified according to World Health Organization obesity classifications. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess risk factors for complications (overall, operative, and wound-related). RESULTS: From a total of 6887 patients who underwent oncoplastic surgery, 4229 patients were nonobese, 1380 had Class 1 obesity (BMI: 30 to <35 kg/m2 ), 737 Class 2 obesity (BMI: 35 to <40 kg/m2 ), and 541 Class 3 obesity (BMI: ≥ 40 kg/m2 ). Greater operative time was found according to higher BMI (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis adjusted for baseline characteristics showed that patients with obesity Class 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.23, p = 0.037) and 3 (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.24-2.83, p = 0.003) had increased risk of overall and wound complications compared with Nonobese patients. Comparing obese with nonobese patients, there were no differences in rates of deep SSI, organ/space SSI, pneumonia, reintubation, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, urinary tract infection, stroke, bleeding, postoperative sepsis, length of stay, and readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Oncoplastic surgery is a safe procedure for most patients. However, caution should be exercised when performing oncoplastic surgery for patients with Class 2 or 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 ), given there was a higher rate of overall and wound-specific complications, compared with patients who were not obese or had Class 1 obesity.

The adoption of oncoplastic surgery: Is there a learning curve?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy followed by volume displacement or replacement surgery. As the field of OPS is growing, we sought to determine if there was a learning curve to this surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent OPS over a 6-year period with a single surgeon formally trained in both Plastic Surgery and Breast Oncology. Cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM) was performed on mean operative time to generate the learning curve and learning curve phases. Outcomes were compared between phases to determine significance. RESULTS: Mean operative time decreased significantly across the 6-year period, generating three distinct learning curve phases: Learner phase (cases 1-23), Competence phase (24-73), and Mastery phase (74 and greater). The overall positive margin rate was 10.9% and there was no significant difference in rates between phases (p = 0.49). Overall complication rates, reoperation rates, and locoregional recurrence remained the same across all phases (p = 0.16; p = 0.65; p = 0.41). The rate of partial nipple loss decreased between phases (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: As with many complex operations, there does appear to be a learning curve with OPS, as the operative time and the rates of partial nipple loss decreased over time.

Comparing oncoplastic breast reduction with immediate symmetry surgery to standard breast reduction surgery: Are postoperative complications worse?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic breast reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is an excellent treatment option for women with breast cancer and macromastia undergoing breast conservation therapy. Here, we aim to better understand the risks associated with ORM compared to standard reduction mammoplasty (SRM). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing ORM or SRM from 2015 to 2021. Primary outcomes included the occurrence of major or minor postoperative complications in the two groups and delays to adjuvant therapy (>90 days) among the women undergoing ORM. RESULTS: Women in the ORM group (n = 198) were significantly older (p < 0.001) with a higher prevalence of smoking (p < 0.001), diabetes mellitus (p < 0.01), and a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3 (p < 0.001) compared to women undergoing SRM (n = 177). After controlling for potential confounders, there were no significant between-group differences in the odds of developing postoperative complications (odds ratio = 0.80, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.69). Only 3% (n = 4) of the 150 women undergoing adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy experienced delays related to postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: ORM has a similar safety profile as SRM, despite the older age and higher number of comorbidities often seen in patients undergoing ORM, and is a safe option for achieving contralateral symmetry at the time of partial mastectomy without delays to adjuvant therapy.

The Impact of Premastectomy Versus Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy on Outcomes in Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction is being increasingly performed over subpectoral reconstruction because of the reduced invasiveness of the procedure, postoperative pain, and risk of animation deformity. Radiation therapy is a well-known risk factor for complications in implant-based breast reconstruction. The effect of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction has not been well-defined. The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of premastectomy versus postmastectomy radiation therapy on outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients who underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with inferior dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix performed by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2019. Demographic, clinical and operative data were reviewed and recorded. Outcomes were assessed by comparing rates of capsular contracture, infection, seroma, hematoma, dehiscence, mastectomy skin flap necrosis, rippling, implant loss, local recurrence and metastatic disease, between patients receiving premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy and nonradiated patients. RESULTS: Three hundred and sixty-nine patients (592 breasts) underwent prepectoral implant-based breast reconstruction. Twenty-six patients (28 breasts) received premastectomy radiation, 45 patients (71 breasts) received postmastectomy radiation, and 305 patients (493 breasts) did not receive radiation therapy. Patients with premastectomy radiation had higher rates of seroma (14.3% vs 0.2%), minor infection (10.7% vs 1.2%), implant loss (21.4% vs 3.4%) and local recurrence (7.1% vs 1.0%), compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.05). Patients with postmastectomy radiation had higher rates of major infection (8.4% vs 2.4%), capsular contracture (19.7% vs 3.2%), implant loss (9.9% vs 3.4%), and local recurrence (5.6% vs 1.0%) when compared with nonradiated patients (P < 0.03). Outcomes after prepectoral breast reconstruction were comparable between premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation patients, respectively, with regard to major infection (7.1% vs 8.4%), dehiscence (3.6% vs 1.4%), major mastectomy skin flap necrosis (7.1% vs 2.8%), capsular contracture (10.7% vs 19.7%), implant loss (21.4% vs 9.9%), and local recurrence (7.1% vs 5.6%) (P ≥ 0.184). However, premastectomy radiation patients had a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation patients (14.3% vs 0%; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In prepectoral implant breast reconstruction, premastectomy and postmastectomy radiation therapy were associated with higher rates of infection and implant loss compared with nonradiated patients. Postmastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of capsular contracture compared with nonradiated patients, and a comparable rate of capsular contracture compared with premastectomy radiation therapy patients. Premastectomy radiation was associated with a higher rate of seroma compared with postmastectomy radiation and nonradiated patients.

Management of recurrent bilateral multifocal pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH).

Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) is a benign hyperplastic condition of the breast that can lead to macromastia. The standard treatment for PASH is focal excision or rarely reduction mammoplasty. We present a rare case of postpartum bilateral rapid breast enlargement and axillary growth that was refractory to reduction mammoplasty. Ultimately, the patient required bilateral mastectomy and two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction. This more extensive form along with its management represents one of the few reported cases in the literature. The decision to pursue bilateral mastectomy was undertaken after exhausting more conservative options. Excellent aesthetic outcome and pain relief was obtained following definitive extirpative and reconstructive surgery.

Surgical versus Nonsurgical Management of Postmastectomy Lymphedema: A Prospective Quality of Life Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy secondary lymphedema can cause substantial morbidity. However, few studies have investigated longitudinal quality of life (QoL) outcomes in patients with postmastectomy lymphedema, especially with regard to surgical versus nonoperative management. This study prospectively investigated QoL in surgically versus nonsurgically managed patients with postmastectomy upper extremity lymphedema. METHODS: This was a longitudinal cohort study of breast cancer-related lymphedema patients at a single institution, between February 2017 and January 2020. Lymphedema Quality of Life Instrument (LyQLI) and RAND-36 QoL instrument were used. Mann-Whitney U and Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive statistics. Wilcoxon's signed-rank testing and linear modeling were used to analyze longitudinal changes in QoL. RESULTS: Thirty-two lymphedema patients were recruited to the study (20 surgical and 12 nonsurgical). Surgical and nonsurgical cohorts did not significantly differ in clinical/demographic characteristics or baseline QoL scores, but at the 12-month time point surgical patients had significantly greater LyQLI overall health scores than nonsurgical patients (79.3 vs. 58.3, p = 0.02), as well as higher composite RAND-36 physical (68.5 vs. 38.3, p = 0.04), and mental (77.0 vs. 52.7, p = 0.02) scores. Furthermore, LyQLI overall health scores significantly improved over time in surgical patients (60.0 at baseline vs. 79.3 at 12 months, p = 0.04). Besides surgical treatment, race, and age were also found to significantly impact QoL on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that when compared with nonoperative management, surgery improved QoL for chronic, secondary upper extremity lymphedema patients within 12-month postoperatively. Our results also suggested that insurance status may have influenced decisions to undergo lymphedema surgery. Further study is needed to investigate the various sociodemographic factors that were also found to impact QoL outcomes in these lymphedema patients.

Impact of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to compare the impact of postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) on outcomes after prepectoral versus subpectoral implant-based breast reconstruction with local deepithelialized dermal flap and acellular dermal matrix (ADM). METHODS: From 2010 to 2017, 274 patients (426 breasts) underwent prepectoral reconstruction. In this group, 241 patients (370 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 45 patients (56 breasts) were exposed to PMRT. Of 100 patients (163 breasts) who underwent partial subpectoral reconstruction, 87 (140 breasts) were not exposed to PMRT, whereas 21 patients (23 breasts) were exposed. The outcomes were assessed by comparing complication rates between the pre- and subpectoral groups. RESULTS: A higher rate of capsular contracture was found for the prepectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (16.1 vs 3.5%; p = 0.0008) and for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for those without PMRT (52.2 vs 2.9%; p = 0.0001). The contracture rate was three times higher for the subpectoral patients with PMRT than for the prepectoral patients with PMRT (52.2 vs 16.1%; p = 0.0018). In addition, 10 (83.3%) of 12 cases with capsular contracture in the subpectoral cohort that received PMRT were Baker grades 3 or 4 compared with only 2 (22.2%) of 9 cases of the prepectoral group with PMRT (p = 0.0092). CONCLUSIONS: The patients undergoing subpectoral breast reconstruction who received PMRT had a capsular contracture rate three times greater with more severe contractures (Baker grade 3 or 4) than the patients receiving PMRT who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction.

Three-Dimensional Imaging in Rhinoplasty: A Comparison of the Simulated versus Actual Result.

PURPOSE: Computer imaging has become increasingly popular for rhinoplasty. Three-dimensional (3D) analysis permits a more comprehensive view from multiple vantage points. However, the predictability and concordance between the simulated and actual result have not been morphometrically studied. The purpose of this study was to aesthetically and quantitatively compare the simulated to actual rhinoplasty result. METHODS: A retrospective review of 3D images (VECTRA, Canfield) for rhinoplasty patients was performed. Images (preop, simulated, and actual) were randomized. A blinded panel of physicians rated the images (1 = poor, 5 = excellent). The image series considered "best" was also recorded. A quantitative assessment of nasolabial angle and tip projection was compared. Paired and two-sample t tests were performed for statistical analysis (P < 0.05 as significant). RESULTS: Forty patients were included. 67.5% of preoperative images were rated as poor (mean = 1.7). The simulation received a mean score of 2.9 (good in 60% of cases). 82.5% of actual cases were rated good to excellent (mean 3.4) (P < 0.001). Overall, the panel significantly preferred the actual postoperative result in 77.5% of cases compared to the simulation in 22.5% of cases (P < 0.001). The actual nasal tip was more projected compared to the simulations for both males and females. There was no significant difference in nasal tip rotation between simulated and postoperative groups. CONCLUSION: 3D simulation is a powerful communication and planning tool in rhinoplasty. In this study, the actual result was deemed more aesthetic than the simulated image. Surgeon experience is important to translate the plan and achieve favorable postoperative results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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 .

The Repair of International Clefts in the Current Surgical Landscape.

Cleft lip and palate (CLP) constitute a significant global disease burden. There are two general models that exist to deliver cleft care: surgical missions and comprehensive cleft centers (CCC). While surgical missions offer high quality surgical care to patients who would be unlikely to ever receive treatment, they may fail to provide sustainable solutions. The development of CCC is growing in popularity worldwide. CCC are permanent centers that offer a multidisciplinary team approach to the treatment of cleft lip and palate. Operation Smile has adopted the concept of specialized surgical care centers. These centers are shown to be safe, cost-effective, and provide sustainable solutions for cleft care. The authors discuss some of the benefits and drawbacks of the classic mission-based model and highlight why there may be a paradigm shift towards CCC.

The Keystone Perforator Island Flap: Review of Utility and Versatile Clinical Applications.

Background: The keystone perforator island flap (KPIF) was described almost a decade ago. However, this flap has only recently been recognized for its advantages in various clinical applications in plastic surgery. A better understanding of the versatility of KPIFs can help promote the widespread adoption of this technique for complex wounds in various anatomical regions. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients undergoing KPIFs from December 2018 to March 2022 at the authors' home institution. The indications, surgical approaches, patient characteristics, and outcomes were extracted for review and analysis. Results: A total of 12 patients (ages 13-86 years) underwent reconstruction with KPIFs for oncologic and nononcologic defects. By anatomic region, three cases involved the upper back, six involved the lumbosacral region, one involved the perineum, and two involved the midfoot. Half of the patients (n = 6) had failed previous attempts at wound closure. The mean defect size was 13.8 × 10.0 cm for the upper back lesions, 13.7 × 4.8 for the lumbosacral defects, and 3.5 × 2.0 for the metatarsal wounds. Median follow-up time for all patients was 7.5 months (IQR: 4-10.5). On follow-up, there was 100% flap survival. Conclusion: KPIFs are a simple, safe, and suitable option for reconstructive closure of defects in many anatomical areas, including wounds complicated by previous failed closure attempts, with low complication risk profile.

Practical oncoplastic surgery techniques needed for practice.

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery that includes immediate breast reconstruction. OPS has previously been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for breast cancer. In a special series on Breast Reconstruction, we aimed to describe oncoplastic breast reconstruction options and the corresponding technical details. Sections were divided by descriptions of OPS specific preoperative workup, volume displacement techniques, volume replacement techniques, and postoperative considerations. In addition, to sharing expert surgical pearls gained through performing OPS procedures over the years. Innovations in breast reconstruction offer women treatment options that are both oncologically safe and aesthetically preferred. The rise in reconstructive procedures is changing how patients make decisions based on their diagnosis. The ultimate surgical decision should be determined by the patient's anatomy, patient's personal preferences, tumor characteristics, and clinical presentation in a shared decision-making fashion with a multidisciplinary team. However, with both volume displacement and volume replacement techniques, women of all breast sizes can achieve an aesthetic outcome without sacrificing oncologic resection.

The Use of Hemostatic Agents to Decrease Bleeding Complications in Breast Cancer Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Following breast cancer surgery, patients often require adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy for locoregional and systemic disease control. These procedures may result in postoperative complications, which may delay adjuvant therapy. To potentially decrease these complications, hemostatic agents may be used. This study evaluated the rate of postoperative bleeding complications and duration of Jackson-Pratt (JP) drain use in oncologic breast surgery with and without hemostatic agents. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board approval, a retrospective chart review was performed. Patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery, mastectomy with or without expander/implant-based reconstruction, and subsequent reconstruction with expander to implant exchange were included. Data collected included indication for surgery, type of operation, use of hemostatic agent, specifically fibrin sealant (FS, EVICEL®, Ethicon, USA) or combination powder (CP, HEMOBLAST™ Bellows, biom'up, France), length of follow-up, time to JP drain removal, and post-operative complications (seroma, hematoma, or operating room (OR) takeback). This was a consecutive experience where initially no hemostatic agent was used, followed by use of FS, and then CP. RESULTS: The use of a hemostatic agent resulted in fewer bleeding complications and significantly decreased time until JP drain removal. Although not significant, subgroup analysis demonstrated that this was more pronounced in the CP group. JP drain duration was decreased among all procedures for CP compared to FS. CONCLUSIONS: The use of hemostatic agents in oncologic breast surgery may result in decreased postoperative complications and significantly reduce time to JP drain removal.

Closed Incision Negative Pressure Therapy in Oncoplastic Breast Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

We aim to discern the impact of closed incision negative pressure therapy (ciNPT) on wound healing in the oncoplastic breast surgery population. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent oncoplastic breast surgery with and without ciNPT in a single health system over 6 years. Oncoplastic breast surgery was defined as breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy with immediate volume displacement or replacement techniques. Primary outcomes were rates of clinically significant complications requiring either medical or operative intervention, including seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, wound dehiscence, and infection. Secondary outcomes were rates of minor complications. Results: ciNPT was used in 75 patients; standard postsurgical dressing was used in 142 patients. Mean age (P = 0.73) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (P = 0.11) were similar between the groups. The ciNPT cohort had higher baseline BMIs (28.23 ± 4.94 versus 30.55 ± 6.53; P = 0.004), ASA levels (2.35 ± 0.59 versus 2.62 ± 0.52; P = 0.002), and preoperative macromastia symptoms (18.3% versus 45.9%; P ≤ 0.001). The ciNPT cohort had statistically significant lower rates of clinically relevant complications (16.9% versus 5.3%; P = 0.016), the number of complications (14.1% versus 5.3% with one complication, 2.8% versus 0% with >2; P = 0.044), and wound dehiscence (5.6% versus 0%; P = 0.036). Conclusions: The use of ciNPT reduces the overall rate of clinically relevant postoperative complications, including wound dehiscence. The ciNPT cohort had higher rates of macromastia symptoms, BMI, and ASA, all of which put them at increased risk for complications. Therefore, ciNPT should be considered in the oncoplastic population, especially in those patients with increased risk for postoperative complications.

Poor accessibility to consumer pricing exists for elective hernia repair surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hospital price transparency is federally mandated to improve consumer accessibility. We aimed to evaluate how hospitals were complying with these regulations for elective hernia repairs. METHODS: Searches were performed for different hospital systems in attempt to find a price for the procedure using author's own health insurance. Data collected included time to reach the cost estimate tool, time to obtain price estimates, and price ranges. With prices for inguinal and ventral hernia repairs varying across the state's medical centers. RESULTS: Fourteen medical centers across the country were included, all had a cost estimate calculator. The average success rate of obtaining a cost for inguinal hernia was 48%. Comparatively, the average success rate of obtaining a cost for ventral hernia was 12%. Of the successful searches for price, significant variation exists amongst the accessed hernia procedure cost. CONCLUSION: Despite federal mandates for hospital price transparency, online cost-estimate calculators are underperforming, thus exposing a need for more accessible cost-estimates for patients undergoing elective hernia repair.