Association of preoperative opioid use and postoperative complications following breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies in orthopedics and general surgery have linked negative patient outcomes with preoperative opioid use. In this study, we investigated the association of preoperative opioid use on breast reconstruction outcomes and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: We reviewed our prospective registry of patients who underwent breast reconstruction for documented preoperative opioid use. Postoperative complications were recorded at 60 days after the first reconstructive surgery and 60 days after the final staged reconstruction. We used a logistic regression model to assess the association between opioid use and postoperative complications, controlling for smoking, age, laterality, BMI, comorbidities, radiation, and previous breast surgery; linear regression to analyze RAND36 scores to evaluate the impact of preoperative opioid use on postoperative QoL, controlling for the same factors; and Pearson chi-squared test to assess factors that may be associated with opioid use. RESULTS: Of the 354 patients eligible for inclusion, 29 (8.2%) were prescribed preoperative opioids. There were no differences in opioid use by race, BMI, comorbidities, previous breast surgery, or laterality. Preoperative opioids were associated with increased odds of postoperative complications within 60 days after the first reconstructive surgery (OR: 6.28; 95% CI: 1.69-23.4; p = 0.006) and within 60 days after the final staged reconstruction (OR: 8.38; 95% CI: 1.17-59.4; p = 0.03). Among patients using opioids preoperatively, the RAND36 physical and mental scores decreased but were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: We found that preoperative opioid use is associated with increased odds of postoperative complications among patients who underwent breast reconstruction and may contribute to clinically significant declines in postoperative QoL.

Facial Dermal Filler Injection and Vaccination: A 12-Year Review of Adverse Event Reporting and Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: Following authorization of 2 COVID-19 vaccines in December 2020, media attention increased towards postvaccine adverse events (AEs) in patients with facial dermal filler injections. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to characterize vaccine-related facial dermal filler AEs by scrutinizing the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. METHODS: The MAUDE database was queried from January 1, 2011 to January 28, 2023 for facial dermal filler medical device reports (MDRs) discussing vaccination-related AEs. A PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) literature review on dermal filler AEs was then conducted. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 10,637 MDRs identified, 33 were included. There were 25 MDRs (75.8%) related to COVID-19 vaccination. Hyaluronic acid-based fillers were described in 31 MDRs (93.9%). AEs were mostly reported within days postinjection (n = 7, 21.2%), but ranged from immediately (n = 2, 6.1%) to months (n = 6, 18.2%) postinjection. Most AEs were reported postvaccine (n = 17, 51.5%) vs postfiller (n = 14, 42.4%). In 26 reports (78.8%), AEs occurred at the site of filler injection. Most MDRs described inflammation/swelling (n = 21, 28.0%). The literature review returned 302 articles, of which 14 were included. Only 1 article (7.1%) was published in a plastic surgery journal. CONCLUSIONS: Although the pandemic brought attention to COVID-19 vaccine-related facial dermal filler AEs, this study shows a low incidence compared with the millions of vaccine and filler injections administered. Reactions with non-COVID-19 vaccines were also documented. Increased awareness may help providers counsel patients undergoing vaccination and dermal filler implantation.

Correction: The Effects of Depression and Anti-Depressants on Quality of Life After Breast Reconstruction: A Post-Hoc Analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.18675.].

Perioperative systemic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in women undergoing breast surgery.

BACKGROUND: Breast surgery encompasses oncologic, reconstructive, and cosmetic procedures. With the recent focus on the over-prescribing of opioids in the literature, it is important to assess the effectiveness and safety of non-opioid pain medication regimens including nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or NSAID pain medications. Clinicians have differing opinions on the safety of perioperative (relating to, occurring in, or being the period around the time of a surgical operation) NSAIDs for breast surgery given the unclear risk/benefit ratio. NSAIDs have been shown to decrease inflammation, pain, and fever, while potentially increasing the risks of bleeding complications. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of perioperative NSAID use versus non-NSAID analgesics (other pain medications) in women undergoing any form of breast surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Breast Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group (CBCG) Specialized Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Clinicaltrials.gov registries to 21 September 2020. Full articles were retrieved for potentially eligible trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) looking at perioperative NSAID use in women undergoing breast surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias, and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The main outcomes were incidence of breast hematoma within 90 days (requiring reoperation, interventional drainage, or no treatment) of breast surgery and pain intensity 24 hours following surgery, incidence rate or severity of postoperative nausea, vomiting or both, bleeding from any location within 90 days, need for blood transfusion, other side effects of NSAID use, opioid use within 24 hours of surgery, length of hospital stay, breast cancer recurrence, and non-prescribed NSAID use. Data were presented as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs with a total of 1596 participants. Seven studies compared NSAIDs (ketorolac, diclofenac, flurbiprofen, parecoxib and celecoxib) to placebo. Four studies compared NSAIDs (ketorolac, flurbiprofen, ibuprofen, and celecoxib) to other analgesics (morphine, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, fentanyl). One study compared NSAIDs (diclofenac) to no intervention. NSAIDs compared to placebo Most outcomes are judged to have low-certainty evidence unless stated otherwise. There may be little to no difference in the incidence of breast hematomas within 90 days of breast surgery (RR 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 2.02; 2 studies, 230 participants; I2 = 0%). NSAIDs may reduce pain intensity 24 (± 12) hours following surgery compared to placebo (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.03; 3 studies, 310 participants; I2 = 73%). There may be little to no difference in the incidence rates or severities of postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.58 to 2.27; 4 studies, 939 participants; I2 = 81%), bleeding from any location within 90 days (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24; 2 studies, 251 participants; I2 = 8%), or need for blood transfusion compared to placebo groups, but we are very uncertain (RR 4.62, 95% CI 0.23 to 91.34; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no difference in other side effects (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.86; 2 studies, 251 participants; I2 = 0%). NSAIDs may reduce opioid use within 24 hours of surgery compared to placebo (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.05; 4 studies, 304 participants; I2 = 63%). NSAIDs compared to other analgesics There is little to no difference in the incidence of breast hematomas within 90 days of breast surgery, but we are very uncertain (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 1 study, 100 participants; very low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce pain intensity 24 (± 12) hours following surgery (SMD -0.68, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.39; 3 studies, 200 participants; I2 = 89%; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce the incidence rates or severities of postoperative nausea, vomiting, or both compared to other analgesics (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.57; 3 studies, 128 participants; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). There is little to no difference in the development of bleeding from any location within 90 days of breast surgery or in other side effects, but we are very uncertain (bleeding: RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 1 study, 100 participants; other side effects: RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.80; 1 study, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs may reduce opioid use within 24 hours of surgery compared to other analgesics (SMD -6.87, 95% CI -10.93 to -2.81; 3 studies, 178 participants; I2 = 96%; low-certainty evidence). NSAIDs compared to no intervention There is little to no difference in pain intensity 24 (± 12) hours following surgery compared to no intervention, but we are very uncertain (SMD -0.54, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.00; 1 study, 60 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests that NSAIDs may reduce postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, and postoperative opioid use. However, there was very little evidence to indicate whether NSAIDs affect the rate of breast hematoma or bleeding from any location within 90 days of breast surgery, the need for blood transfusion and incidence of other side effects compared to placebo or other analgesics. High-quality large-scale RCTs are required before definitive conclusions can be made.

The Effects of Depression and Anti-Depressants on Quality of Life After Breast Reconstruction: A Post-Hoc Analysis.

Background A personal history of depression prior to breast cancer diagnosis and its effect on post-diagnosis quality of life (QOL) in women undergoing breast reconstruction is relatively unknown. We performed the current study to determine if depression alters QOL for patients who undergo breast reconstruction by assessing the pre-to-post-operative change in patient-reported BREAST-Q scores. Methodology We conducted a single-center, post-hoc analysis of 300 patients with completed BREAST-Q data who underwent breast reconstruction from November 2013 to November 2016 following a diagnosis of breast cancer. Patients completed the BREAST-Q at four time points: pre-operatively, six weeks following tissue expander (TE) insertion for patients undergoing staged reconstruction, and six and 12 months following the final reconstruction. Medical records were reviewed to identify patients who had a pre-cancer diagnosis of clinical depression and/or anti-depressant medication use. BREAST-Q scores were compared between groups and within groups. Groups compared were the depression (n = 50) and no depression (n = 250) patients, along with anti-depressant (n = 36) and no anti-depressant (n = 14) use in the depression group. Results Within-group Sexual Well-being scores at the six-week post-TE follow-up for patients in the depression group (median = 37, interquartile range [IQR] = 25-47) were significantly lower (p < 0.01) than the scores for patients in the no depression group (median = 47, IQR = 39-60). There were no statistically significant differences in BREAST-Q scores in other domains. When compared to patients diagnosed with depression who were not taking anti-depressants, anti-depressant medication use did not result in statistically significant higher BREAST-Q scores, although Satisfaction With Breasts six months post-operatively, Psychosocial Well-being at six weeks post-TE, Sexual Well-being at six weeks post-TE and six months post-operatively were clinically higher in patients taking anti-depressants for depression. Conclusions Patients with a diagnosis of depression prior to breast cancer had lower BREAST-Q Sexual Well-being scores in the six-week TE group with or without anti-depressant medication. Patients with a pre-cancer diagnosis of depression considering TEs may benefit from additional counseling prior to breast reconstruction or electing a different method of breast reconstruction. Anti-depressant medications may provide clinically higher BREAST-Q scores in patients with a pre-cancer diagnosis of depression. Adding an anti-depressant medication to a patient's treatment plan may provide additional benefits. Larger samples are required to properly determine the impact of anti-depressant medications on BREAST-Q scores in patients with a pre-cancer diagnosis of depression.

What Do Clinicians and Organizations Owe Patients With Recalled Implanted Devices or Materials?

Placement of prosthetic breast implants for augmentation or reconstruction is common. Two specific safety concerns are considered in this article: breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and complexes of symptoms known as breast implant illness. In response to a case involving a patient with concerns about BIA-ALCL, this commentary notes that triage, counseling, and treatment are guided in practice by available data in the literature. The commentary also discusses ethical considerations regarding breast implants and related illnesses.

Adjunctive Procedures and Informed Consent with Breast Implant Explantation.

BACKGROUND: The use of injectable or implantable materials or devices in the breast for augmentation or reconstruction has a history of innovation and controversy. Staying current in the field of breast implant management today means understanding not just the published literature but also its absence. Cutting edge breast implant treatment also means awareness of patient and media-driven interests and requests. METHODS: Adjuvant treatments to optimize physical and psychological well-being with breast implant explantation, without replacement, will be addressed through literature review and analysis. RESULTS: The body of literature demonstrates evidence of variable, and sometimes contradictory, methods to address adjunctive management of systemic concerns, the capsule, soft tissue of the native breast/chest, and treatment timing related to explantation. Few approaches are supported by very strong evidence. Many treatment methodologies are defensible. Any current attempts at optimizing management in patients undergoing explantation will be somewhat impaired by the ongoing nebulousness of related issues, such as breast implant illness. It seems clear, therefore, that plastic surgeons must fulfill their duty as caregivers to provide explantation surgery, either to attempt to improve physical health, mental well-being, or simply to respect patients' wishes. A well-informed surgeon will likely employ a variety of approaches, adapted to the unique patient presentations at hand. CONCLUSION: It is expected that consultations, incisions, tissue rearrangements, surgical timing, and treatment indications will continue to vary as scientific investigation strives to understand and to optimize treatment of patients experiencing difficulty with breast implants.

Decision aid for women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seeking breast reconstruction surgery: A prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blinded, pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Women undergoing immediate breast reconstruction for breast cancer often experience anxiety when faced with reconstruction and the type of reconstruction to choose. The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of a decision aid on decisional conflict in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer seeking breast reconstruction. METHODS: Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients seeking breast reconstruction at a single center were prospectively randomized into two groups. Comparisons were made between two groups using the decisional conflict scale (DCS): women who reviewed the standard educational materials prior to initial consultation (control) and women who reviewed standard materials prior to initial consultation and then reviewed a decision aid brochure at initial consultation and two-week post-consultation (intervention). Pre-to-post-consultation DCS scores were compared within and between the control groups and intervention groups to assess which group had lower DCS scores. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients, mean age 53±9 years were included. Median differences between pre-to-post-consultation DCS total scores in the control and intervention groups lowered from 32 to 22 and 28 to 16, respectively. Significant differences in subscores were control group: uncertainty: 54-21 (p = 0.030), and intervention group: uncertainty: 46-29 (p = 0.036) and values clarity: 29-25(p = 0.042). Pre-to-post-consultation differences between DCS scores and subscores did not demonstrate any statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Decision aids did not significantly reduce pre-operative DCS total scores compared to current educational materials. More educational materials may not always be helpful for patients.

Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Online Education Tools: A Multimetric Analysis.

PURPOSE: In light of highly publicized media coverage on breast implant recalls and Food and Drug Administration hearings on breast implant safety, online searches of these topics have surged. It is thus critical to determine whether such searches are providing meaningful information for those who use them. Patient/laywomen-directed online education materials on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) must not only be comprehensible but also accurate, actionable, and culturally concordant, especially as more diverse populations turn to the internet for breast implant-related information. This study assessed the overall suitability of BIA-ALCL patient-directed educational text and video-based materials online. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, multimetric investigation of online text- and video-based patient-directed educational materials for BIA-ALCL using multiple validated measures. Two reviewers assessed each resource. Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher exact analyses were used as appropriate to compare text- and video-based online resources. RESULTS: In total, 30 websites and 15 videos were evaluated, more than half (56%) of which were from academic/physician or governmental/nonprofit sources. Overall, website and video content, as well as quality, varied by source. Academic/physician or governmental/nonprofit sources tended to be more comprehensive and have higher-quality information than commercial/media outlet sources. Median actionability of websites was 38%, well below the threshold of 70% used in the literature to identify actionable resources. The median suitability score for BIA-ALCL websites was 57%, which is considered "adequate" based on published thresholds. The mean overall Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool score for websites was 2.4; Cultural Sensitivity Assessment Tool scores higher than 2.5 are generally regarded as culturally sensitive. In general, videos were more understandable than websites. Substantial interrater reliability across the validated tools used in this study was noted using Pearson correlation coefficients. CONCLUSIONS: Online resources varied in content and quality by source. As BIA-ALCL becomes an increasingly salient topic among both providers and patients, it is important to empower women with accurate information about this implant-associated cancer. Of available resources, providers should refer patients or those seeking more information to websites from governmental/academic organizations (".gov" or ".org" domains) and videos from academic/physician or governmental sources, given that among high-quality resources, these were most clear/comprehensible. Overall, there is a need for improved online content on this topic.

Establishing a Culture of Patient Safety, Quality, and Service in Plastic Surgery: Integrating the Fractal Model.

PROBLEM: There are obstacles to effective nationwide implementation of a culture of patient safety. Plastic surgery faces unique challenges in this area because quality measures are not as well-established as in other fields. Plastic surgery may also require emphasis on patient-reported outcomes as a quality-of-life specialty with distinct concomitant analytical methods. APPROACH: We devised a dynamic framework, based on our 3-year experience using a Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program-a formal quality improvement committee structure, literature review, and work from The Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality. This framework is specific and exportable to the field of plastic surgery. Monthly patient safety, quality, and service committee meetings encourage multilevel participation in a bottom-up fashion, while connecting with other departments and entities in Johns Hopkins Medicine. Our model focuses our work in the following four domains: (1) safety, (2) external measures, (3) patient experience, and (4) value. Our framework identifies and communicates clear goals, creates necessary infrastructure, identifies opportunities and needs, uses robust performance to develop and implement interventions, and includes analytics to track improvement plans and results. OUTCOMES: We have gradually implemented this quality improvement structure into the Johns Hopkins Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery successfully since 2012. Outcomes have improved in externally reported measures of patient safety, quality, and service. We have demonstrated exemplary National Surgical Quality Improvement Program performance for morbidity, return to operating room, and readmission rates. Patient satisfaction surveys show improvement related to the high-level patient experience.

Evidence-Based Performance Measures for Rhinoplasty: A Multidisciplinary Performance Measure Set.

SUMMARY: The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery commissioned the multidisciplinary Rhinoplasty Performance Measure Development Work Group to identify and draft quality measures for the care of patients undergoing both functional and aesthetic rhinoplasty. One outcome measure and three process measures were identified. The outcome looked at patient satisfaction with rhinoplasty procedures. The process measures look at motivations and expectations of the procedure, airway assessment, and nonnarcotic shared decision-making strategies for pain management. All measures in this report were approved by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons Quality and Performance Measures Work Group and Executive Committee, and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation, the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, The Rhinoplasty Society, and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. The Work Group recommends the use of these measures for quality initiatives, Continuing Medical Education, Maintenance of Certification, Qualified Clinical Data Registry reporting, and national quality reporting programs.

Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction in the Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Plane: An Analysis of Short-Term Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is becoming an increasingly important and accessible component of breast cancer care. We hypothesize that prepectoral patients benefit from lower short-term complications and shorter periods to second-stage reconstruction compared with individuals receiving reconstruction in the subpectoral plane. METHODS: An institutional review board-approved retrospective review of all adult postmastectomy patients receiving tissue expanders (TEs) was completed for a 21-month period (n = 286). RESULTS: A total of 286 patients underwent mastectomy followed by TE placement, with 59.1% receiving prepectoral TEs and 40.9% receiving subpectoral TEs. Participants receiving prepectoral TEs required fewer clinic visits before definitive reconstruction (6.4 vs 8.8, P <0.01) and underwent definitive reconstruction 71.6 days earlier than individuals with subpectoral TE placement (170.8 vs 242.4 days, P < 0.01). Anesthesia time was significantly less for prepectoral TE placement, whether bilateral (68.0 less minutes, P < 0.01) or unilateral (20.7 minutes less, P < 0.01). Operating room charges were higher in the prepectoral subgroup ($31,276.8 vs $22,231.8, P < 0.01). Partial necrosis rates were higher in the prepectoral group (21.7% vs 10.9%, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing breast reconstruction using prepectoral TE-based reconstruction benefit from less anesthesia time, fewer postoprative clinic visits, and shorter time to definitive reconstruction, at the compromise of higher operating room charges.

Pure fat grafting for breast reconstruction: An alternative autologous breast reconstruction.

Plastic surgeons offer various options for breast reconstruction based on patient preference, underlying disease, and comorbidities. An alternative form of breast reconstruction exists, which includes tissue expansion with tissue expander and subsequent fat grafting without the use of implant or flap. We retrospectively reviewed the breast cancer patients who underwent breast reconstruction at our institution to identify those with pure fat grafting. Demographic information, complications, operative details, and BREAST-Q scores were abstracted. From 2010-2015, 10 patients were identified. Patients with unilateral or bilateral mastectomy followed by pure fat grafting had a median of 3.5 or 4 sessions and a total median fat grafting volume of 380 or 974.5 cc, respectively. Patients were followed for 12 months, and no complications or breast cancer recurrences were noted. Finally, BREAST-Q scores at the 12-month follow-up were comparable to the preoperative values.

Pain Management in Breast Surgery: Recommendations of a Multidisciplinary Expert Panel-The American Society of Breast Surgeons.

Opioid overdose accounted for more than 47,000 deaths in the United States in 2018. The risk of new persistent opioid use following breast cancer surgery is significant, with up to 10% of patients continuing to fill opioid prescriptions one year after surgery. Over prescription of opioids is far too common. A recent study suggested that up to 80% of patients receiving a prescription for opioids post-operatively do not need them (either do not fill the prescription or do not use the medication). In order to address this important issue, The American Society of Breast Surgeons empaneled an inter-disciplinary committee to develop a consensus statement on pain control for patients undergoing breast surgery. Representatives were nominated by the American College of Surgeons, the Society of Surgical Oncology, The American Society of Plastic Surgeons, and The American Society of Anesthesiologists. A broad literature review followed by a more focused review was performed by the inter-disciplinary panel which was comprised of 14 experts in the fields of breast surgery, anesthesiology, plastic surgery, rehabilitation medicine, and addiction medicine. Through a process of multiple revisions, a consensus was developed, resulting in the outline for decreased opioid use in patients undergoing breast surgery presented in this manuscript. The final document was reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Breast Surgeons.

A Comprehensive Review of Surgical Treatment of Migraine Surgery Safety and Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Recent clinical experience with migraine surgery has demonstrated both the safety and the efficacy of operative decompression of the peripheral nerves in the face, head, and neck for the alleviation of migraine symptoms. Because of the perceived novelty of these procedures, and the paranoia surrounding a theoretical loss of clinical territory, neurologists have condemned the field of migraine surgery. The Patient Safety Subcommittee of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons ventured to investigate the published safety track record of migraine surgery in the existing body of literature. METHODS: A comprehensive review of the relevant published literature was performed. The relevant databases and literature libraries were reviewed from the date of their inception through early 2018. These articles were reviewed and their findings analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty-nine published articles were found that demonstrated a substantial, extensively replicated body of data that demonstrate a significant reduction in migraine headache symptoms and frequency (even complete elimination of headache pain) following trigger-site surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine surgery is a valid method of treatment for migraine sufferers when performed by experienced plastic surgeons following a methodical protocol. These operations are associated with a high level of safety. The safety and efficacy of migraine surgery should be recognized by plastic surgeons, insurance companies, and the neurology societies.

Differences between Breast Cancer Reconstruction and Institutionally Established Normative Data Using the BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module: A Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is limited for BREAST-Q scores in women without breast cancer or breast surgery to establish baseline values for clinical interpretation. The primary aim of this study was to compare differences in breast satisfaction and quality of life in women without breast cancer and without breast surgery to patients undergoing breast reconstruction using the BREAST-Q. METHODS: The authors performed a single-center, patient-reported outcomes comparative study. A sample of 300 women attending gynecology appointments completed a study-specific demographics form and preoperative BREAST-Q reconstruction module. Eligible women had no history of breast cancer or breast surgery and were not currently pregnant (control group). The authors compared prospectively collected control group data to demographics and preoperative and 12-month postoperative BREAST-Q scores in 300 breast reconstruction patients, retrospectively selected from a prospectively collected registry. RESULTS: Control group BREAST-Q scores were higher in Satisfaction with Breasts (mean, 59.3 versus 55.3; p < 0.042) and Physical Well-being Chest scores (mean, 84.1 versus 78.8; p < 0.001), and lower for Physical Well-being Abdomen scores (mean, 81.9 versus 88.7; p < 0.001) when compared to breast reconstruction patients' preoperative scores. When compared with breast reconstruction patients' 12-month postoperative scores, control group scores were lower in Satisfaction with Breasts (mean, 59.3 versus 65.5; p < 0.002) and Psychosocial Well-being (mean, 69.5 versus 76.2; p < 0.001) and higher in Physical Well-being Chest (mean, 84.1 versus 78.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors found differences in preoperative and 12-month postoperative BREAST-Q scores between breast reconstruction patients and a comparable control population. Establishing normative BREAST-Q data could serve as an important baseline for breast outcomes research and better understanding of patients' ability to recover quality of life following reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Patient-Related Risk Factors for Worsened Abdominal Well-Being after Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported lower satisfaction with the abdomen preoperatively is a strong predictor of undergoing DIEP flap surgery. The authors evaluated physical well-being of the abdomen before and after flap-based breast reconstruction to determine potential predictors for decreased postoperative abdominal well-being. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed an institutional breast reconstruction registry, selecting patients who underwent abdominally based autologous flap breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2015. The authors' primary outcome was the Physical Well-being of the Abdomen domain from the BREAST-Q, measured preoperatively and at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits after final reconstruction. The authors classified two patient groups: those who experienced a clinically important worsening of Physical Well-being of the Abdomen score and those who did not. The authors used the chi-square test, t test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test, and multivariable logistic regression to identify potential predictors. RESULTS: Of 142 women identified, 74 (52 percent) experienced clinically important worsening of physical well-being of the abdomen, whereas 68 (48 percent) did not. The first group experienced a 25-point (95 percent CI, 22 to 28) decrease and the latter an 8-point (95 percent CI, 5 to 10) decrease in score compared to baseline. Multivariable analysis showed an association between higher baseline score and race, with higher odds of decreased score at the 12-month follow-up. A higher baseline RAND-36 general health score, bilateral reconstruction, and a lower body mass index demonstrated a trend for clinically important worsening of physical well-being of the abdomen. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of flap-based breast reconstruction patients experienced clinically important worsening of abdominal well-being after final breast reconstruction. Clinicians may use these findings to identify patients at higher risk of worsened postoperative abdominal well-being. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Postoperative Free Flap Breast Protocol Optimizing Resources and Patient Safety.

BACKGROUND: As deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flaps have gained popularity in breast reconstruction, the postoperative care of these patients, including the appropriate hospital length-of-stay and the need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, has become a topic of debate. At our institution, we have adopted a pathway that aims for discharge on postoperative day 3, utilizing continuous tissue oximetry without ICU admission. This study aims to evaluate outcomes with this pathway to assess its safety and feasibility in clinical practice. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction between January 2013 and August 2014. Data of interest included patient demographics and medical history as well as complication rates and date of hospital discharge. RESULTS: In total, 153 patients were identified undergoing 239 DIEP flaps. The mean age was 50 years (standard deviation [SD] = 10.2) and body mass index (BMI) 29.4 kg/m2 (SD = 5.2). Over the study period, the flap failure rate was 1.3% and reoperation rate 3.9%. Seventy-one percent of patients were discharged on postoperative day 3. Nine patients required hospitalization beyond 5 days. Theoretical cost savings from avoiding ICU admissions were $1,053 per patient. CONCLUSION: A pathway aiming for hospital discharge on postoperative day 3 without ICU admission following DIEP flap breast reconstruction can be feasibly implemented with an acceptable reoperation and flap failure rate.