Gracilis Flap Reconstruction After Proctocolectomy for Malignancy and Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Gracilis flap reconstruction (GFR) following abdominoperineal resection (APR) or proctocolectomy (PC) can reduce pelvic wound complications but has not been adequately assessed in the setting of immunosuppression, fistulous disease, and neoadjuvant chemoradiation. METHODS: Patients undergoing APR/PC with GFR were retrospectively analyzed with regard to perioperative characteristics, and morbidity was assessed. RESULTS: Patients underwent GFR for rectal cancer (n = 28), anal cancer (n = 3), inflammatory bowel disease (n = 13), or benign fistulizing disease (n = 1). 22.2% were chronically immunosuppressed, and 66.7% underwent preoperative chemoradiation. Twenty (44.4%) patients had minor wound complications, all treated nonoperatively. Nine patients had major complications with 4 patients requiring reoperation. The 4 threatened flaps were unilateral, and all were salvaged. Donor site morbidity was minimal. Patients with major complications were older (56 vs. 71 years, P = .030), and less likely to have pelvic drains (P = .018). CONCLUSION: In high-risk perineal wounds, GFR offers durable reconstruction with acceptably low morbidity.

Onlay with Adhesive Use Compared with Sublay Mesh Placement in Ventral Hernia Repair: Was Chevrel Right? An Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The use of mesh during ventral hernia repair (VHR) is a well-accepted concept. However, the ideal location of mesh placement remains strongly debated. Although VHR with onlay mesh placement has historically been associated with a high rate of wound events, this surgical approach is technically less challenging than VHR with sublay mesh placement. The purpose of this study was to compare 30-day wound events after onlay mesh placement with adhesive fixation vs those after sublay mesh placement using the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative database. STUDY DESIGN: All patients undergoing elective, open VHR with synthetic mesh placement from January 2013 through January 2016 were identified within the Americas Hernia Society Quality Collaborative. Only patients with clean wounds were included. Patients were divided into 2 groups: onlay mesh placement with the use of adhesive and sublay mesh placement. The association of mesh location with 30-day wound events was investigated using a matched analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,854 patients met inclusion criteria; 1,761 (95.0%) underwent sublay mesh placement and 93 (5.0%) underwent onlay mesh placement with the use of adhesive. A 2:1 sublay to onlay matched analysis was performed based on factors previously shown to influence wound events after VHR. After matching, both groups had a lower mean Ventral Hernia Working Group grade and fewer associated comorbidities. There was no statistically significant difference between the sublay and onlay groups with respect to 30-day surgical site infections (2.9% vs 5.5%; p = 0.30), surgical site occurrences (15.2% vs 7.7%; p = 0.08), or surgical site occurrences requiring procedural intervention (8.2% vs 5.5%; p = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: Ventral hernia repair with onlay mesh placement is a safe alternative to VHR with sublay mesh placement in low-risk patients. Additional studies are needed to determine the long-term mesh outcomes and recurrence rates in both of these groups.

Tissue Expander versus Tissue Expander and Latissimus Flap in Morbidly Obese Breast Reconstruction Patients.

BACKGROUND: Immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction in morbidly obese patients represents a challenge because neither prosthetic nor abdominal-based options may be suitable. METHODS: This study compared a previously published cohort of immediate prosthetic reconstruction of 346 patients (511 breasts) of whom 49 patients (67 breasts) were morbidly obese (defined as a body mass index > 35) with a morbidly obese patient population whose breasts were reconstructed immediately following postmastectomy with latissimus flap and tissue expander (21 patients and 22 breasts) in the same time period. The preoperative risk factors of mastectomy such as tobacco use, diabetes, and prior radiation and the postoperative complications of mastectomy such as skin necrosis, seroma, and prosthesis loss were examined. The explantation of the tissue expander provided a defined endpoint of reconstruction failure. RESULTS: The average body mass index in the tissue expander/implant group and in the latissimus flap plus tissue expander/implant group was 40.9 and 40.1, respectively. The risk profile of diabetes and tobacco use was similar in both groups. Fifteen of the 67 breasts (22.3%) of the tissue expander/implant group and 15 of the 23 breasts (65.2%) of the latissimus flap group had received prior radiation. The prosthesis loss was 13 of 67 breasts (19.4%) that had tissue-expander-alone reconstruction and 1 of 22 (4.8%) in the latissimus group that had tissue expander reconstruction. Modification of donor-site incision and skin-island location in the latissimus group of patients can minimize scar deformity. CONCLUSION: The loss rate in immediate postmastectomy reconstruction in morbidly obese patients with latissimus flap plus tissue expander was substantially lower than the loss rate in those with breast reconstructed with tissue expander alone.

Human acellular dermis versus no acellular dermis in tissue expansion breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Human acellular dermis has been adopted for routine use in tissue expander reconstruction. The purported benefits include higher intraoperative fill volume, facilitation of lower pole expansion, and enhanced definition of the lower pole of the breast. Recently, concerns have arisen about an increase in postoperative complications with its use. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who had immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction with a tissue expander from July of 2001 to July of 2011. All tissue expander reconstructions before 2005 were performed submuscularly only and all subsequent to 2005 with the use of AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) acellular dermis. Patient demographics were collected, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: The study cohort included 346 patients and 511 immediate breast reconstructions; 232 patients and 346 breasts were reconstructed with and 114 patients and 165 breasts without acellular dermis. Age, body mass index, diabetes, and tobacco use were equivalent in the two groups. Seroma occurrence in the acellular dermis group was nearly twice (30.0 versus 15.1 percent) that of the no acellular dermis breasts, but the tissue expander loss was only slightly higher (11.6 versus 8.5 percent) and not statistically significant. Body mass index in patients who lost their tissue expander was 31 kg/m, statistically significantly higher than in those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of acellular dermis did not increase the incidence of tissue expander loss, despite a doubling of frequency of seroma. Prior radiation and use of acellular dermis did culminate in a prohibitively high loss rate of the tissue expander.