Geographic Disparities and Payment Variation for Immediate Lymphatic Reconstruction in Massachusetts.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about practice patterns and payments for immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR). This study aims to evaluate trends in ILR delivery and billing practices. METHODS: We queried the Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database between 2016 and 2020 for patients who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection for oncologic indications. We further identified patients who underwent lymphovenous bypass on the same date as tumor resection. We used ZIP code data to analyze the geographic distribution of ILR procedures and calculated physician payments for these procedures, adjusting for inflation. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify variables, which predicted receipt of ILR. RESULTS: In total, 2862 patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection over the study period. Of these, 53 patients underwent ILR. Patients who underwent ILR were younger (55.1 vs 59.3 years, P = 0.023). There were no significant differences in obesity, diabetes, or smoking history between the two groups. A greater percentage of patients who underwent ILR had radiation (83% vs 67%, P = 0.027). In multivariable regression, patients residing in a county neighboring Boston had 3.32-fold higher odds of undergoing ILR (95% confidence interval: 1.76-6.25; P < 0.001), while obesity, radiation therapy, and taxane-based chemotherapy were not significant predictors. Payments for ILR varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: In Massachusetts, patients were more likely to undergo ILR if they resided near Boston. Thus, many patients with the highest known risk for breast cancer-related lymphedema may face barriers accessing ILR. Greater awareness about referring high-risk patients to plastic surgeons is needed.

Reprocessing capabilities of newly approved devices for use in surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Single-use medical devices used in surgery can create environmental waste and increased costs. Reprocessed medical devices may reduce cost and environmental impact. This study investigated the reprocessing capabilities of newly FDA-approved devices in surgery. METHODS: Devices were identified using the publicly-available FDA Releasable 510(k) Database from 2018 to 2023 using the instrument product codes for laparoscope, general, and plastic surgery (GCJ); and electrosurgical (GEI) devices. GCJ and GEI devices were categorized based on usage, and the number of devices (total, single, and reprocessed) were extracted. Costs were obtained from public websites. RESULTS: There were 658,510(k) applications for surgical devices, representing 3.8 % (658/16723) of total applications. Reprocessing capabilities existed for 29 % of GCJ devices and 14 % of GEI devices. Among GCJ devices, 5 (56 %) laparoscopy and 16 (38 %) camera devices had reprocessing capabilities. For GEI devices, 7 (50 %) laparoscopic and 5 (50 %) cable devices had reprocessing capabilities. Only one (6 %) tissue ablation device had reprocessing capabilities. The average cost of GCJ and GEI single-use devices ($11314; $8554, respectively) was less than reprocessed counterparts ($17206; $16134, respectively). CONCLUSION: Reprocessing capabilities for newly approved surgical devices are variable and overall limited. To enhance adoption of reprocessing in surgical practice, future efforts will likely be needed to expand the reprocessing potential of new surgical devices.

Identification of potent anticancer copper(ii) complexes containing tripodal bis[2-ethyl-di(3,5-dialkyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)]amine moiety.

A series of heteroleptic copper(ii) complexes of the composition [Cu(L1-5)Cl]X, where X = ClO4 and/or PF6 and [bis(2-ethyl-di(3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl))-(6-methyl-(2-pyridylmethyl))]amine (L1), [bis(2-ethyl-di(3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl))-(3,4-dimethoxy-(2-pyridylmethyl))]amine (L2), [bis(2-ethyl-di(3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)-(2-quinolymethyl)]amine (L3), [bis(2-ethyl-di(3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazolyl)-(di(3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl-methyl))]amine (L4) and [bis(2-ethyl-di(3,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)-(5-methyl-3-phenyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl-methyl)]amine (L5), were prepared and thoroughly characterized including single-crystal X-ray diffraction technique. The in vitro cytotoxicity of complexes against A2780, A2780R, HOS and MCF-7 human cancer cell lines was evaluated using the MTT test. The results revealed that complexes [Cu(L1)Cl]PF6 (1-PF6), [Cu(L2)Cl]ClO4 (2-ClO4) and [Cu(L3)Cl]PF6 (3-PF6) are the most effective, with IC50 values ranging from 1.4 to 6.3 µM, thus exceeding the cytotoxic potential of metallodrug cisplatin (IC50 values ranging from 29.9 to 82.0 µM). The complexes [Cu(L4)Cl]PF6 (4-PF6) and [Cu(L5)Cl]PF6 (5-PF6) showed only moderate cytotoxicity against A2780, with IC50 = 53.6 µM, and 33.8 µM, respectively. The cell cycle profile, time-resolved cellular uptake, interactions with small sulfur-containing biomolecules (cysteine and glutathione), intracellular ROS production, induction of apoptosis and activation of caspases 3/7 were also evaluated in the case of the selected complexes. It has been found that the best performing complexes 1 and 2 cause cell arrest in the G2/M phase and induce apoptosis via the increase in production of ROS, dominantly due to the overproduction of superoxide.