Venous Thromboembolism after Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction: Review of Outcomes After a Postoperative Prophylaxis Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction is among the higher-risk patient groups for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in plastic surgery. Surgeons often opt for a patient-specific approach to postoperative anticoagulation, and the field has yet to come to a consensus on VTE chemoprophylaxis regimens. METHODS: A new chemoprophylaxis protocol was introduced starting March 2019 that involved two weeks of treatment with enoxaparin, regardless of patient risk factors. A retrospective chart review was conducted on all patients who underwent DIEP flap breast reconstruction at our institution between January 2014 and March 2020. Patients were grouped based on whether they enrolled in the new VTE protocol in the postoperative period or not. Patient demographics, prophylaxis type, and outcomes data were recorded, retrospectively. The primary outcome measure was postoperative VTE incidence. RESULTS: Risk of VTE was significantly higher in patients discharged without VTE prophylaxis compared to patients discharged with prophylaxis (3.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.03). Notably, zero patients in the VTE prophylaxis group developed a DVT or PE. Additionally, the risk of a VTE event was 25 times greater in patients with a Caprini score greater than or equal to 6 (p=0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the successful implementation of a two-week VTE chemoprophylaxis protocol in DIEP flap breast reconstruction patients that significantly reduces the rate of VTE while not affecting the rate of hematoma complications.

Breast Reconstruction Trends in the Setting of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy: Analysis of Practices among Plastic Surgeons in the United States.

Radiation is an integral part of breast cancer therapy. The ideal type and timing of breast reconstruction with relation to radiation delivery are not well established. The study aimed to identify reconstructive practices among American plastic surgeons in the setting of pre- and postmastectomy radiation. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of members of the American Society of Plastic Surgery was performed. Practice/demographic information and breast reconstruction protocols were queried. Univariate descriptive statistics were calculated, and outcomes were compared across cohorts with χ2 and Fischer exact tests. Results: Overall, 477 plastic surgeons averaging 16.3 years in practice were surveyed. With respect to types of reconstruction, all options were well represented, although nearly 60% preferred autologous reconstruction with prior radiation and 55% preferred tissue expansion followed by implant/autologous reconstruction in the setting of unknown postoperative radiation. There was little consensus on the optimal timing of reconstruction in the setting of possible postoperative radiation. Most respondents wait 4-6 or 7-12 months between the end of radiation and stage 2 implant-based or autologous reconstruction. Common concerns regarding the effect of radiation on reconstructive outcomes included mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, capsular contracture, tissue fibrosis, and donor vessel complications. Conclusions: Despite considerable research, there is little consensus on the ideal type and timing of reconstruction in the setting of pre- and postoperative radiation. Understanding how the current body of knowledge is translated into clinical practice by different populations of surgeons allows us to forge a path forward toward more robust, evidence-based guidelines for patient care.

Impact of Dermal Matrix Brand in Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands. METHODS: A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Midline epigastric scars can be associated with higher umbilical complications following DIEP flap harvest.

BACKGROUND: Umbilical complications can be relatively common after breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps. The medial umbilical ligaments and the ligamentum teres hepatis can be the sole blood supply to the umbilicus after a DIEP flap harvest. Prior incisions along the epigastric midline may disrupt the ligamentum teres hepatis. In this retrospective study, we assess the influence of previous midline epigastric scars on umbilical complications after DIEP flap harvest. METHODS: All patients who underwent breast reconstruction with DIEP flaps were identified at an academic institution over six years. Relevant sociodemographic and clinicopathologic factors were reviewed in the electronic medical records. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the role of clinical variables to predict the chance of umbilical complications. RESULTS: A total of 243 patients met inclusion criteria, with 39 patients (16%) having prior surgery utilizing midline epigastric incisions. Twenty-one patients had umbilical complications. No significant difference in patient characteristics was found between patients with and without prior midline epigastric scars. Patients with a history of previous midline epigastric scars had a higher rate of umbilical complications (20.5% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.01). Bilateral medial row perforator-based DIEP flap harvest was also related to a higher rate of umbilical complications (18.4% vs. 6.2% p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Previous midline epigastric scars are associated with higher rates of umbilical complications after DIEP flap harvest. Bilateral medial row perforator-based DIEP flap harvest exacerbates the rate of umbilical complications and should be avoided in patients with prior midline epigastric incision whenever possible.

Telehealth: Could It Be an Avenue to Microvascular Breast Reconstruction for Patients with Geographical Barriers?

BACKGROUND: All women undergoing a mastectomy have the right to reconstruction. However, many women do not receive reconstruction and many more are not aware of all the reconstructive options available to them. Travel distance to a center that provides reconstruction and subsequent follow-up may be a contributing factor to this disparity especially among those who seek microsurgical options. Telehealth, which provides patients with remote video consultations and decreases the travel burden, may be a solution to optimize the accessibility of breast reconstruction for these patients. The purpose of this study was to discuss the efficacy and reliability of telehealth to overcome geographic barriers. METHODS: Patients who received breast reconstruction and participated in video telehealth visits between February and May 2020 were included in this study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes were collected. Video telehealth encounters were reviewed to determine specific concerns and questions discussed during these encounters. RESULTS: A total of 235 breast reconstruction surgery patient encounters were recorded for 4 plastic surgeons who offer microsurgical breast reconstruction. Eighty-eight patients (37.4%) were seen as telehealth visits, 20 (22.7%) of which were new patient visits. Eight (9.09%) patients were microsurgical breast reconstruction candidates and 25 (28.4%) were following-up after microsurgical breast reconstruction. The majority of telehealth visits included normally healing wounds in the postoperative patient. CONCLUSION: Telehealth provides an avenue for premastectomy consultation, second opinion visits, and postoperative follow-up for patients who have geographical barriers precluding them from reaching plastic surgeons who perform all types of breast reconstruction.

Revisiting the Relationship Between Hospital Case Volume and Outcomes in Abdominally Based Free Flap Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Increased operative volume has been associated with benefits in patient outcomes for a variety of surgical procedures. In autologous abdominally based breast reconstruction, however, there are few studies assessing the association between procedure volume and patient outcomes. The objectives of this study are to evaluate the associations between abdominal-based free flap breast reconstruction and patient outcomes. METHODS: The 2013-2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample was queried for all female patients with a diagnosis of breast cancer who underwent mastectomy and immediate abdominally based breast reconstruction (deep inferior epigastric perforator or transverse rectus abdominus muscle free flaps). Outcomes included occurrence of major or surgical site in-hospital complications, hospital cost, and length of stay (LOS). High-volume (HV) hospitals were defined as the 90th percentile of annual case volume or higher (>18 cases/y). Multivariate regressions and generalized linear modeling with gamma log-link function were performed to access the outcomes associated with HV hospitals. RESULTS: Overall, 7145 patients at 473 hospitals were studied; of these, 42.4% of patients were treated at HV hospitals. There were significant differences in unadjusted major complications (2.1% vs 4.3%; P < 0.001) and unadjusted surgical site complications (3.5% vs 6.1%; P < 0.001) between HV and non-HV hospitals. After adjustments for clinical and hospital characteristics, patients treated at HV hospitals were less likely to experience a major complication (odds ratio, 0.488; 95% confidence interval, 0.353-0.675; P < 0.001) or surgical site complication (odds ratio, 0.678; 95% confidence interval, 0.519-0.887; P = 0.005). There was no difference in inpatient cost between HV and non-HV hospitals ($26,822 vs $26,295; marginal cost, $528; P = 0.102); however, HV hospitals had a shorter LOS (4.31 vs 4.40 days; marginal LOS, -0.10 days; P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that perform a larger volume of immediate abdominal-based breast reconstructions after mastectomy, when compared with those that perform a lower volume of these procedures, seem to have an associated lower rate of major complications and a shorter LOS. However, these same HV centers demonstrate no decrease in costs. Further research is needed to understand how these HV centers can reduce hospital costs.

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 30-Day Challenge: Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Reporting Reliability.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess reliability of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) 30-day perioperative outcomes and complications for immediate, free-tissue transfer breast reconstruction by direct comparisons with our 30-day and overall institutional data, and assessing those that occur after 30 days. METHODS: Data were retrieved for consecutive immediate, free-tissue transfer breast reconstruction patients from a single-institution database (2010-2015) and the ACS-NSQIP (2011-2014). Multiple logistic regressions were performed to compare adjusted outcomes between the 2 datasets. RESULTS: For institutional versus ACS-NSQIP outcomes, there were no significant differences in surgical-site infection (SSI; 30-day, 3.6% versus 4.1%, P = 0.818; overall, 5.3% versus 4.1%, P = 0.198), wound disruption (WD; 30-day, 1.3% versus 1.5%, P = 0.526; overall, 2.3% versus 1.5%, P = 0.560), or unplanned readmission (URA; 30-day, 2.3% versus 3.3%, P = 0.714; overall, 4.6% versus 3.3%, P = 0.061). However, the ACS-NSQIP reported a significantly higher unplanned reoperation (URO) rate (30-day, 3.6% versus 9.5%, P < 0.001; overall, 5.3% versus 9.5%, P = 0.025). Institutional complications consisted of 5.3% SSI, 2.3% WD, 5.3% URO, and 4.6% URA, of which 25.0% SSI, 28.6% WD, 12.5% URO, and 7.1% URA occurred at 30-60 days, and 6.3% SSI, 14.3% WD, 18.8% URO, and 42.9% URA occurred after 60 days. CONCLUSION: For immediate, free-tissue breast reconstruction, the ACS-NSQIP may be reliable for monitoring and comparing SSI, WD, URO, and URA rates. However, clinicians may find it useful to understand limitations of the ACS-NSQIP for complications and risk factors, as it may underreport complications occurring beyond 30 days.

Does Hormone Therapy Use Increase Perioperative Complications in Abdominally Based Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction?

BACKGROUND: The use of hormone therapy (tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors) has been shown to increase venous thromboembolism. As breast cancer patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction are often receiving hormone therapy, it is unclear whether this increased thrombotic risk is associated with increased flap loss. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients undergoing abdominally based microsurgical breast reconstruction at an academic institution from 2004 to 2015. Patients were divided by use of hormone therapy at the time of surgery. Complication rates, including complete or partial flap loss and overall complications, were compared and analyzed using univariate and logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among a total of 853 patients (1253 flaps), 193 patients (269 flaps) were receiving hormone therapy and 660 patients (984 flaps) were not. Patients on hormone therapy had higher rates of previous breast surgery, advanced cancer stage, chemoradiation before reconstruction, and delayed and unilateral reconstruction. There were no statistically significant differences between hormone therapy patients and nontherapy patients in complete flap loss (1.0 percent versus 1.1 percent) and partial flap loss (2.2 percent versus 1.5 percent). Hypertension and previous breast surgery were the only independent risk factors for minor complications (adjusted OR, 2.1; 95 percent CI, 1.3 to 3.6; p = 0.005; and adjusted OR, 1.8; 95 percent CI, 1.2 to 2.7; p = 0.009, respectively) and overall complications (adjusted OR, 2.2; 95 percent CI, 1.3 to 3.7; p = 0.004; and adjusted OR, 1.9; 95 percent CI, 1.3 to 3.0; p = 0.003, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Hormone therapy was not associated with a higher incidence of complete or partial flap loss or overall complications. The authors propose an individualized approach to the preoperative cessation of tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Racial disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: National trends in utilization from 2005 to 2014.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of racial disparities in the receipt of postmastectomy breast reconstruction is well documented. The objective of this study was to describe trends in racial disparities overall and by reconstructive technique. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify women who underwent mastectomy and/or breast reconstruction from 2005 to 2014. Patient demographics were recorded, and cases were grouped by reconstructive status and technique. Trends were assessed with the Cochran-Armitage test and the index of disparity. RESULTS: Over the study period, 92,960 postmastectomy patients were identified (77,049 white women, 10,396 black women, 4939 Asian women, and 576 Native American women), of whom 46,931 underwent reconstruction. Of these, 7692 women underwent autologous reconstructions (3913 free flaps and 3696 pedicled flaps). From 2005 to 2014, receipt of breast reconstruction by postmastectomy patients rose from 33.2% to 60.0%, receipt of autologous reconstruction by patients who underwent breast reconstruction fell from 30.4% to 15.9%, and receipt of free-flap reconstruction by patients who underwent autologous reconstruction rose from 15.0% to 70.8%. These trends were significant in all racial subgroups (P < .001), except for Native Americans (P = .269). The index of disparity decreased from 51.4% to 22.6% for overall receipt of breast reconstruction, decreased from 10.7% to 7.0% for tissue expander and implant-based reconstruction, increased from 18.0% to 27.3% for autologous reconstruction, and decreased from 66.7% to 4.3% for free-flap reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: The use of postmastectomy breast reconstruction is steadily rising in the United States. Racial disparities persist, but progress has been made. Further efforts are needed to reduce racial disparities. Cancer 2018;124:2774-2784. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Does industry funding mean more publications for subspecialty academic plastic surgeons?

BACKGROUND: Conflict of interest among physicians in the context of private industry funding led to the introduction of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. This study examined whether private industry funding correlated with scholarly productivity in the respective subspecialties of plastic surgery and the wider academic plastic surgery community. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Full-time plastic surgeons and their academic attributes were identified via institutional websites. Fellowship-trained individuals were segregated into subspecialties of microsurgery, craniofacial surgery, hand surgery, esthetic surgery, and burn surgery. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to extract industry funding information. Each individual's bibliometric data were then collected through Scopus to determine the correlation between selected surgeon characteristics, academic productivity, and industry funding. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-five academic plastic surgeons were identified, with 532 having defined subspecialty training. Academic bibliometrics among subspecialty surgeons were comparable among the five groups with esthetic and craniofacial surgeons displaying a preponderance of attaining more industry funding (P = 0.043) and career publications respectively, with the latter not attaining statistical significance (P = 0.12). Overall, research-specific funding (P = 0.014) and higher funding amounts (P < 0.0001) correlated with higher Hirsch indices in tandem with higher academic rank. A funding level of $2000 appeared to be the approximate cutoff above which scholastic productivity became apparent. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated in detail the association between industry funding and academic bibliometrics in academic plastic surgery of every subspecialty. Even at modest amounts, industry support, especially when research designated, positively influenced research and therefore, academic output.

Surgical site infection in immediate breast reconstruction: Does chemotherapy timing make a difference?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aim to analyze the impact of chemotherapy timing on surgical site infections (SSI) after immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing IBR between 2010 and 2015 was performed. Patients were divided into four groups: those with neoadjuvant chemotherapy only, adjuvant chemotherapy only, both adjuvant and neoadjuvant, and those with no chemotherapy. Outcomes of interest included SSI and timing of post-operative SSI. RESULTS: A total of 949 reconstructions were performed over the study period. Subgroup breakdown was as follows: A total of 56 (5.9%) neoadjuvant only, 173 (18.2%) adjuvant only, 18 (1.9%) both, and 702 (74.0%) none. Overall infection rates were 10.7%, 10.4%, 22.2%, and 6.1% in the four groups, respectively (P = 0.015). On multivariate analysis, no significant differences were observed when comparing presence or absence of chemotherapy in the overall reconstruction cohort or when subgrouped by reconstruction modality-autologous or alloplastic. There were no significant differences in time from neoadjuvant chemotherapy to surgery date noted between patients who developed a post-operative SSI and those who did not (4.40 ± 1.58 vs 4.72 ± 1.39 weeks; P = 0.517). CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy timing did not increase the odds of surgical site infections in patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction.

Immediate Breast Reconstruction among Patients with Medicare and Private Insurance: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: By eliminating economic hurdles, the Women's Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 represented a paradigm shift in the availability of breast reconstruction. Yet, studies report disparities among Medicare-insured women. These studies do not account for the inherent differences in age and comorbidities between a younger privately insured and an older Medicare population. We examined immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) utilization between a matched pre- and post-Medicare population. METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database (1992-2013), breast cancer patients undergoing IBR were identified. To minimize confounding medical variables, 64-year-old privately insured women were compared with 66-year-old Medicare-insured women. Demographic data, IBR rates, and complication rates were compared. Trend over time was plotted for both cohorts. RESULT: A total of 21,402 64-year-old women and 25,568 66-year-old women were included. Both groups were well matched in terms of demographic type of reconstruction and complication rates. 72.3% of 64-year-old and 71.2 of % 66-year-old women opted for mastectomy. Of these, 25.5% (n = 3,941) of 64-year-old privately insured and 17.7% (n = 3,213) of 66-year-old Medicare-insured women underwent IBR (P < 0.01). During the study period, IBR rates increased significantly in both cohorts in a similar cohort. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates significant increasing IBR rates in both cohorts. Moreover, after an initial slower upward trend, after a decade, IBR in 66-year-old Medicare-insured women approached similar rates of breast reconstruction among those with private insurance. Trends in unilateral versus bilateral mastectomy are also seen.

Alternative Metrics of Scholarly Output: The Relationship among Altmetric Score, Mendeley Reader Score, Citations, and Downloads in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The impact of scholarly output is typically measured by the number of citations and, more recently, downloads. Newer metrics have been developed to reflect digital dissemination of knowledge such as the Altmetric and Mendeley reader scores. This article examines the relationship among citations, download rates, Altmetric scores, and Mendeley reader scores in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. METHODS: The authors accessed the 55 most-cited articles published in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery from 2014 to 2015. Altmetric scores, download rates, field-weighted citations, and Mendeley reader number were extracted. Correlation matrices were used to identify methodologies positively correlating between scores. The top-ranked articles were then collectively evaluated for central subject themes and unifying scoring methodologies. RESULTS: The highest Altmetric score obtained was 159, the greatest number of citations was 52, and the greatest number of downloads was 41. There was no apparent correlation between Altmetric scores and Scopus citations (p = 0.58) or article subject themes (p = 0.63). Citation was positively associated with download rates (r = 0.31, p = 0.021) and Mendeley reader number (r = 0.46, p = 0.001). Mendeley reader number demonstrated high precision in identifying top-ranked citation articles (p = 0.044) despite its lack of direct association with Altmetric score (p = 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: With the growing public desire for evidence-based publications, our study quantifies the unique nature of Altmetric score while discouraging its use in isolation. Download rates are a more rapid measure of publication impact compared with citation number. Mendeley readership is also promising as an alternative index.

Identifying Sources of Funding That Contribute to Scholastic Productivity in Academic Plastic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Scholastic productivity has previously been shown to be positively associated with National Institute of Health (NIH) grants and industry funding. This study examines whether society, industry, or federal funding contributes toward academic productivity as measured by scholastic output of academic plastic surgeons. METHODS: Institution Web sites were used to acquire academic attributes of full-time academic plastic surgeons. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payment database, NIH reporter, the Plastic Surgery Foundation (PSF), and American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS) Web sites were accessed for funding and endowment details. Bibliometric data of each surgeon were then collected via Scopus to ascertain strengths of association with each source. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify significant contributors to high scholastic output. RESULTS: We identified 935 academic plastic surgeons with 94 (10.1%), 24 (2.6%), 724 (77.4%), and 62 (6.6%) receiving funding from PSF, AAPS, industry, and NIH, respectively. There were positive correlations in receiving NIH, PSF, and/or AAPS funding (P < 0.001), whereas industry funding was found to negatively associate with PSF (r = -0.75, P = 0.022) grants. The NIH R award was consistently found to be the most predictive of academic output across bibliometrics, followed by the AAPS academic scholarship award. Conventional measures of academic seniority remained predictive across all measures used. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates for the first time interactions between industry, federal, and association funding. The NIH R award was the strongest determinant of high scholastic productivity. Recognition through AAPS academic scholarships seemed to associate with subsequent success in NIH funding.

The Importance of Patient Satisfaction: A Blessing, a Curse, or Simply Irrelevant?

New regulations require that physician performance must be evaluated and graded in both objective and subjective ways. This represents a novel factor in American health care delivery driven by the reality that the United States spends more than any other nation on health care yet still lags behind in key outcome measures. Patient satisfaction has been established as a core component of physician rankings and reimbursement. In fact, it already has acted as both a powerful motivator and stressor. Patient feedback has driven hospital administrators' agendas to improve facilities and provide relative luxuries to inpatients, and individual providers have been tempted to ignore sound medical judgment by relenting to patient requests to increase their satisfaction scores. Unfortunately, there is little high-level evidence to support that patient satisfaction will improve medical outcomes, and there are plenty of contradictory data in smaller studies. Part of the difficulty of these studies may lie in the diversity of patient expectations, which are dependent on the disease process and the inherently subjective and labile nature of people's responses. Reliable tools are needed that will take into account what constitutes a superior quality of patient care in a more systematic, meaningful, and validated way.

Fat Grafting with Tissue Liquefaction Technology as an Adjunct to Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Tissue liquefaction technology (TLT) delivers warmed saline from the liposuction cannula tip at low pressure pulses to disaggregate adipocytes. This technology differs significantly from that used in other liposuction devices including water jet-assisted liposuction. Here we introduce our early experience with this technology in the setting of fat transfer for revision breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 136 consecutive patients who underwent fat harvest with TLT and subsequent transfer into 237 breast reconstructions was conducted at a single institution. This two-surgeon series examined donor and recipient site complication rates over a median follow-up of 143 days [87-233]. RESULTS: The overall complication rate was 28.7 %, of which the majority (22.1 %) was fat necrosis at the recipient site as documented by any clinical, imaging, or pathologic evidence. The abdomen served as the donor site for half of the cases. Donor site complications were limited to widespread ecchymosis of the donor site notable in 10.4 % of cases. Twenty-five percent of patients had received postmastectomy radiotherapy prior to fat transfer. Prior to revision with fat transfer, implant-based breast reconstruction was used in 75.5 % of cases, and autologous flaps in the remainder. Fat transfer was combined with other reconstructive procedures 94.1 % of the time. CONCLUSIONS: TLT can be used to harvest adipocytes for fat transfer with donor site morbidity and recipient site complications comparable to other modalities. The efficiency and quality of harvested fat makes this technology appealing for wide spread adoption during fat transfer. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that the 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 .

Breast Implant-Associated Infections: The Role of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the Local Microbiome.

BACKGROUND: The most common cause of surgical readmission after breast implant surgery remains infection. Six causative organisms are principally involved: Staphylococcus epidermidis and S. aureus, Escherichia, Pseudomonas, Propionibacterium, and Corynebacterium. The authors investigated the infection patterns and antibiotic sensitivities to characterize their local microbiome and determine ideal antibiotic selection. METHODS: A retrospective review of 2285 consecutive implant-based breast procedures was performed. Included surgical procedures were immediate and delayed breast reconstruction, tissue expander exchange, and cosmetic augmentation. Patient demographics, chemotherapy and/or irradiation status, implant characteristics, explantation reason, time to infection, microbiological data, and antibiotic sensitivities were reviewed. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (2.1 percent) required inpatient admission for antibiotics, operative explantation, or drainage by interventional radiology. The infection rate varied depending on surgical procedure, with the highest rate seen in mastectomy and immediate tissue expander reconstruction (6.1 percent). The mean time to explantation was 41 days. Only 50 percent of infections occurred within 30 days of the indexed National Surgical Quality Improvement Program operation. The most commonly isolated organisms were coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (27 percent), methicillin-sensitive S. aureus (25 percent), methicillin-resistant S. aureus (7 percent), Pseudomonas (7 percent), and Peptostreptococcus (7 percent). All Gram-positive organisms were sensitive to vancomycin, linezolid, tetracycline, and doxycycline; all Gram-negative organisms were sensitive to gentamicin and cefepime. CONCLUSIONS: Empiric antibiotics should be vancomycin (with the possible inclusion of gentamicin) based on their broad effectiveness against the authors' unique microbiome. Minor infections should be treated with tetracycline or doxycycline as a second-line agent. National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data are adequate for monitoring and comparing breast infections but certainly not comprehensive. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.