European e-Delphi process to define expert consensus on electrochemotherapy treatment indications, procedural aspects, and quality indicators in melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Skin metastases are an important co-morbidity in melanoma. Despite broad adoption, electrochemotherapy implementation is hindered by a lack of treatment indications, uncertainty regarding procedural aspects, and the absence of quality indicators. An expert consensus may harmonize the approach among centres and facilitate comparison with other therapies. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel was recruited for a three-round e-Delphi survey. A literature-based 113-item questionnaire was proposed to 160 professionals from 53 European centres. Participants rated each item for relevance and degree of agreement on a five-point Likert scale, and received anonymous controlled feedback to allow revision. The items that reached concordant agreement in two successive iterations were included in the final consensus list. In the third round, quality indicator benchmarks were defined using a real-time Delphi method. RESULTS: The initial working group included 122 respondents, of whom 100 (82 per cent) completed the first round, thus qualifying for inclusion in the expert panel (49 surgeons, 29 dermatologists, 15 medical oncologists, three radiotherapists, two nurse specialists, two clinician scientists). The completion rate was 97 per cent (97 of 100) and 93 per cent (90 of 97) in the second and third rounds respectively. The final consensus list included 54 statements with benchmarks (treatment indications, (37); procedural aspects, (1); quality indicators, (16)). CONCLUSION: An expert panel achieved consensus on the use of electrochemotherapy in melanoma, with a core set of statements providing general direction to electrochemotherapy users to refine indications, align clinical practices, and promote quality assurance programmes and local audits. The residual controversial topics set future research priorities to improve patient care.

Electrochemotherapy is an effective locoregional therapy for skin metastases from melanoma, a problem faced by almost half of patients with metastatic disease. The lack of comparative studies and the heterogeneity of its clinical application among centres make it challenging to support consistent, evidence-based recommendations. To address this unmet need, a three-round online survey was conducted to establish a consensus on treatment indications, standard operating procedures, and quality indicators. In the survey, a panel of 100 European melanoma experts agreed on 56 statements that can be used to improve patient selection, homogenize treatment application, and monitor outcomes.

Treatment of keloids and hypertrophic scars with bleomycin and electroporation.

BACKGROUND: Keloids and hypertrophic scars are the result of abnormal healing responses and dermal tissue proliferation; current surgical procedures can give rise to exuberant scarring and permanent functional loss or disfigurement. Considering the promising results reported when treating keloids and hypertrophic scars with intralesional bleomycin injection and the enhanced effect of bleomycin when combined with electroporation, the authors hypothesized that electrochemotherapy should be used to treat keloids and hypertrophic scars when other treatments have failed. METHODS: Twenty patients with keloids or hypertrophic scars were treated with one or more sessions of electrochemotherapy and followed prospectively. Bleomycin was administered intravenously followed by application of electrical pulses to the lesion site. Treatment efficacy was determined either by clinical evaluation (e.g., volume, flattening, pliability, erythema) or by the patient's self-reported symptomatology (e.g., pruritus, pain). RESULTS: Treatment was well tolerated by patients, and no serious adverse events were observed. A median reduction of 87 percent (range, 41 to 100 percent) was observed in volume size, and 33 lesions (94 percent) showed a volume reduction of more than 50 percent. Scar pliability and erythema scores were also significantly reduced (p < 0.0001). A reduction in hitching was observed in 89 percent of patients (p < 0.0001), and a reduction in pain was observed in 94 percent (p < 0.0001). Only one recurrence was observed after 18 months. CONCLUSION: Electroporation in combination with bleomycin is an effective treatment for patients affected by large keloids or hypertrophic scars or patients who are nonresponders to other treatments. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Inferiorly based parenchymal flap mammaplasty: a safe, reliable, and versatile technique for breast reduction and mastopexy.

BACKGROUND: Breast reduction and mastopexy are among the most frequent procedures in aesthetic breast surgery. Many approaches have been described, and various types of dermaglandular pedicles for the nipple-areola complex have been used. The authors present a technique suitable for either mastopexy or breast reduction whereby the superior or superomedial pedicle supplying the nipple-areola complex is combined with an inferior dermaglandular flap to restore the upper pole fullness, thereby improving breast shape and projection. METHODS: From January of 2008 to January of 2010, 83 patients underwent inferiorly based parenchymal flap mammaplasty. Patients' ages ranged from 23 to 65 years. The mean follow-up period was 27 months. The inferior breast tissue that is usually removed in a superior/superomedial pedicle technique is spared and shaped as a small implant and stitched to the pectoralis major muscle. The superior/superomedial pedicle is used for the nipple-areola complex. RESULTS: All the procedures were successful. No major complications were reported. All the patients were very satisfied with the shape, size, projection, and upper pole fullness of their breast postoperatively as reported by the questionnaire. Comparative evaluation test scores of a four-member jury were significantly higher regarding breast shape (p = 0.007), projection (p = 0.0041), and upper pole fullness (p = 0.0028). CONCLUSIONS: The inferiorly based parenchymal flap mammaplasty is a safe, versatile, and reproducible technique. It demonstrates ease of pedicle shaping and breast remodeling in patients undergoing mastopexy and breast reduction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Current indications for and comparative analysis of three different types of latissimus dorsi flaps.

BACKGROUND: Free tissue transfer with lower abdominal flaps for autologous breast reconstruction is not suitable for all patients. The latissimus dorsi (LD) musculocutaneous flap is an alternative, effective method for both immediate and delayed breast reconstruction. OBJECTIVES: The authors assess their experience with LD flaps for breast reconstruction, including indications for patient selection, donor site choice, aesthetic outcomes, complications, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: Charts for all patients who underwent breast reconstruction with one of three types of LD myocutaneous flaps during a three-year period at a single institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients (n = 82) were divided into three groups: (1) 35 patients received a standard LD myocutaneous flap with implant, (2) 18 patients underwent a muscle sparing LD flap procedure with implant, and (3) 29 patients had an autologous LD flap. A questionnaire was administered to assess flap and donor site complications, aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and shoulder function. RESULTS: Flap complications occurred in 13 patients (15%). Donor site complications occurred in 24 patients (28%), mostly consisting of back seroma with the autologous LD flap. There was no significant difference in shoulder range of motion or muscle strength between the operated and unoperated sides. Patient satisfaction was high in all three study groups. CONCLUSIONS: The LD is a safe, versatile, and reproducible technique for breast reconstruction. The procedure benefits from ease of flap harvesting and setting and may provide satisfactory results in diverse patients, including those for whom an abdominal flap is neither indicated nor feasible. .