Perioperative Safety of Combined Augmentation-Mastopexy: An Evaluation of National Database.

INTRODUCTION: The safety of combined augmentation-mastopexy is controversial. This study evaluates a national database to analyze the perioperative safety of combined augmentation-mastopexy to either augmentation or mastopexy alone. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify patients undergoing augmentation mammaplasty and mastopexy from 2005 to 2018. The patients were divided into the following groups: group I, augmentation; group II, mastopexy; group III, combined augmentation-mastopexy. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared. Outcomes were 30-day complications, reoperation, and readmission. RESULTS: We found 5868 (74.2%) augmentation only, 1508 (19.1%) mastopexy only and 534 (6.6%) combined augmentation-mastopexy cases. Mean operative time was highest among the combined group at 129 minutes compared with 127 minutes for mastopexy alone and 66 minutes for augmentation alone (P < 0.01). Rates of any complications and readmission were different among groups (0.8% vs 2.5% vs 1.5% respectively, P < 0.01 and 0.7% vs 1.5% vs 1.5% respectively, P = 0.049), whereas reoperation was not statistically different (1.2% vs 1.4% vs 1.5%, P = 0.75). The incidence of dehiscence (0.6%; P < 0.01) was highest in the combined group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis did not reveal an increased odds of complications, reoperation, or readmission with combined augmentation-mastopexy. CONCLUSIONS: An evaluation of the nationwide cohort suggests that combined augmentation-mastopexy is a safe procedure in the perioperative period.

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Operative Management of Isolated Facial Fractures.

BACKGROUND: Patients with isolated facial fractures requiring operative fixation can be managed on an inpatient or outpatient basis. The goal of this study was to compare the safety of each approach using a large multi-institutional database. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Project was reviewed for facial fractures between 2005 and 2018. Groups were identified using inpatient and outpatient status as designated in the database. Patients who required additional procedures, concurrent procedures, or other emergency procedures were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used for group comparisons and logistic regression models were used to identify risk factors for complications. RESULTS: We identified 4240 patients who underwent operative fixation of isolated facial fractures. The majority of these cases (67.9%) were done on an outpatient basis. Compared to those in the outpatient group, patients in the inpatient group were older, had more medical comorbidities, had higher wound class, and had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class. Complication (5.9% versus 2.3%), reoperation (4.3% versus 1.7%), and readmission (5.7% versus 2.5%) rates were all higher in the inpatient group (P < 0.01). By logistic regression analysis, the odds ratios for complications, reoperation, and readmission were higher in the inpatient group. After adjusting for imbalanced preoperative patient characteristics, the increased risk of complications [odds ratio (OR) = 1.728, confidence interval (CI) 1.146-2.606, P = 0.01] and the increased risk of reoperation (OR = 2.302, CI 1.435-3.692, P = 0.01) in the inpatient group persisted, while the risk of readmission (OR = 1.684, CI 0.981-2.891, P = 0.06) no longer showed statistical significance between the inpatient and outpatient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Inpatient operative management of isolated facial fractures is associated with an increased risk of complications and a 2-fold increased risk of reoperation, though no increased risk of readmission.

Morbidity Associated With Structural Graft Use in Paramedian Forehead Flap.

INTRODUCTION: Paramedian forehead flap for nasal reconstruction may involve the use of a structural graft. The authors hypothesized that the use of structural grafts with paramedian forehead flap is associated with an increased risk of 30-day complications. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of the American College of Surgeon (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). We identified all patients undergoing paramedian forehead flap reconstruction from 2007 through 2018 using Current Procedural Terminology code 15731. Patients who had structural graft harvested at the time of paramedian forehead flap were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Groups were defined based on the use of structural grafts. Propensity score matching was performed using preoperative and intraoperative characteristics to produce matched cohorts. The authors further stratified individual graft types to identify differential risks associated with each. Logistic regression was then used to determine whether the use of structural grafts was associated with increased risk for 30-day complications. RESULTS: The authors identified 1198 patients with paramedian forehead flap reconstruction, of whom 325 (27.1%) required structural grafts. Propensity score matching 1:1 yielded 247 patients in each of the matched cohorts. Overall 30-day complications (4.5% versus 5.3%), wound related complications (3.2% versus 4.1%), systemic complications (1.2% versus 2%), unplanned reoperation (6.5% versus 3.2%), and unplanned readmission (6.6% versus 10.2%) were similar between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). Subgroup analysis of different graft types showed that costochondral graft was associated with increased wound related complications (0.9% versus 8.3%, P = 0.03). The odds of having wound related complications with the use of costochondral graft was OR = 5.3, CI = 1.5-18.8, P = 0.02. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of structural grafts does not increase risk of overall 30-day complications, there is an increased risk of wound related complications associated with the use of costochondral and rib grafts.

Risk Factors for 30-Day Mortality After Head and Neck Microsurgical Reconstruction for Cancer: NSQIP Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the incidence and risk factors for 30-day postoperative mortality after microsurgical head and neck reconstruction following oncological resection. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. SETTING: American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. METHODS: Microsurgical head and neck reconstructive cases were identified from 2005 to 2018 using Current Procedural Terminology codes and oncologic procedures using the International Classification of Disease 9 and 10 codes. The outcome of interest was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The 30-day postoperative mortality rate was 1.2%. Univariate logistic regression analysis identified the following associations: age >80 years, hypertension, poor functional status, preoperative wound infection, renal insufficiency, malnutrition, anemia, and prolonged operating time. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to stratify further by the degree of malnutrition and anemia. Hematocrit <30% was found to be an independent risk factor for 30-day postoperative mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 9.59, confidence interval [CI] 2.32-39.65, P < .1) with albumin <3.5 g/dL. This association was even stronger with albumin <2.5 g/dL (OR = 11.64, CI 3.06-44.25, P < .01). One-third of patients (36.6%) had preoperative anemia, of which less than 1% required preoperative transfusion, although one-quarter (24.6%) required intraoperative or 72 hours postoperative transfusion. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative anemia is a risk factor for 30-day postoperative mortality. This association seems to get stronger with worsening anemia. Identification and optimization of such patients preoperatively may mitigate the incidence of 30-day postoperative mortality.

Surface Area Graphic Evaluation (SAGE) Diagram Documentation in Burn Patients: Room for Quality Improvement.

Background The first step in the management of burn patients is an accurate estimation of the total body surface area (TBSA) involvement. Depending on which, burns are categorized as major (>20%) and minor (<20%). This then dictates fluid resuscitation and level of care. At the University of New Mexico Burn Center, we use Surface Area Graphic Evaluation (SAGE) diagramming to objectively estimate the body surface area involvement. We hypothesized patients undergoing SAGE documentation will have better outcomes.  Methods This is a retrospective study of 320 consecutive patients from 2014-2018 at the University of New Mexico Burn Center. Only patients treated surgically were included. We recorded patient demographics, comorbidities, and burn details. The primary measure of interest was SAGE documentation and the secondary measure of interest was outcomes associated with it. Results We found that a SAGE diagram was only documented for a minority of patients (40%). After comparing patients in the SAGE group vs. No SAGE group, we found that the patients were the same in both groups with regards to demographics, comorbidities, and burn characteristics. The use of a SAGE diagram did not appear to be a significant predictor of complications, including surgical site infections, graft loss, donor site complications, postoperative pneumonia, urinary tract infections, deep vein thrombosis, or myocardial infarction (p=0.254). Conclusion Only a minority of patients get a SAGE diagram documented. However, our study did not find any improved outcomes with the use of a SAGE diagram. There is a need for prospective studies to validate the utility of SAGE diagramming in predicting adverse outcomes in major burns.