Combined pectoralis and rectus abdominis flaps are associated with improved outcomes in sternal reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Mortality increases nearly 5-fold in the approximately 5% of patients who develop sternal wound complications after cardiothoracic surgery. Flap-based reconstruction can improve outcomes by providing well-vascularized soft tissue for potential space obliteration, antibiotic delivery, and wound coverage; however, reoperation and readmission rates remain high. This study used the high case volume at a tertiary referral center and a diverse range of reconstructive approaches to compare various types of flap reconstruction. Combined (pectoralis and rectus abdominis) flap reconstruction is hypothesized to decrease sternal wound complication-related adverse outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients treated for cardiothoracic surgery sternal wound complications between 2008 and 2018 was performed. Patient demographics, comorbidities, wound characteristics, surgical parameters, and perioperative data were collected. Multivariable regression modeling with stepwise forward selection was used to characterize predictive factors for sternal wound-related readmissions and reoperations. RESULTS: In total, 215 patients were assessed for sternal wound reconstruction. Patient mortality at 1 year was 12.4%. Flap selection was significantly associated with sternal wound-related readmissions (P = .017) and reoperations (P = .014). Multivariate regression demonstrated rectus abdominis flap reconstruction independently predicted increased readmissions (odds ratio 3.4, P = .008) and reoperations (odds ratio 2.9, P = .038). Combined pectoralis and rectus abdominis flap reconstruction independently predicted decreased readmissions overall (odds ratio 0.4, P = .031) and in the deep sternal wound subgroup (odds ratio 0.1, P = .033). CONCLUSION: Although few factors can be modified in this complex highly comorbid population with a challenging and rare surgical problem, consideration of a more surgically aggressive multiflap reconstructive approach may be justified to improve outcomes.

Social Support and Coping Strategies in Patients with Traumatic Brachial Plexus Injury.

BACKGROUND: Emotional and social characteristics may influence rehabilitation and recovery after traumatic brachial plexus injury. PURPOSES: We sought to investigate if traumatic brachial plexus injury patients have different levels of social support and employ distinct coping strategies from uninjured control subjects. In addition, we studied which coping strategies are more commonly used among traumatic brachial plexus injury patients. METHODS: Questionnaires for social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List and Social Support Questionnaire) and coping strategies (Brief-Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced) were administered to traumatic brachial plexus injury patients and an age- and sex-matched volunteer cohort (without brachial plexus injury). RESULTS: There were no differences in interpersonal support (mean [SD] = 26.0 [8.6], 26.5 [6.8]), number of persons available for emotional support, and satisfaction with support between traumatic brachial plexus injury patients (n = 36) and volunteers (n = 43). The following coping strategies were more common among traumatic brachial plexus injury patients: active coping, self-distraction, denial, behavioral disengagement, venting, planning, self-blame, and acceptance. CONCLUSION: Patients with traumatic brachial plexus injury have similar levels of social support as healthy volunteers but are more likely to use an array of coping strategies. Surgeons and other clinicians should be aware of coping strategies favored by patients, particularly the potential for behaviors detrimental to recovery such as behavioral disengagement, self-blame, and denial. This work will inform future investigations into the influence of social support and coping strategies on clinical outcomes after traumatic brachial plexus injury.

Indirect Cost of Traumatic Brachial Plexus Injuries in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brachial plexus injuries (BPIs) disproportionately affect young, able-bodied individuals. Beyond direct costs associated with medical treatment, there are far-reaching indirect costs related to disability and lost productivity. Our objective was to estimate per-patient indirect cost associated with BPI. METHODS: We estimated indirect costs as the sum of (1) short-term wage loss, (2) long-term wage loss, and (3) disability payments. Short-term (6-month) wage loss was the product of missed work days and the average earnings per day. The probability of return to work was derived from a systematic review of the literature, and long-term wage loss and disability payments were estimated. Monte Carlo simulation was used to perform a sensitivity analysis of long-term wage loss by varying age, sex, and return to work simultaneously. Disability benefits were estimated from U.S. Social Security Administration data. All cost estimates are in 2018 U.S. dollars. RESULTS: A systematic review of the literature demonstrated that the patients with BPI had a mean age of 26.4 years, 90.5% were male, and manual labor was the most represented occupation. On the basis on these demographics, our base case was a 26-year-old American man working as a manual laborer prior to BPI, with an annual wage of $36,590. Monte Carlo simulation estimated a short-term wage loss of $22,740, a long-term wage loss of $737,551, and disability benefits of $353,671. The mean total indirect cost of traumatic BPI in the Monte Carlo simulations was $1,113,962 per patient over the post-injury lifetime (median: $801,723, interquartile range: $22,740 to $2,350,979). If the probability of the patient returning to work at a different, lower-paying job was doubled, the per-patient total indirect cost was $867,987. CONCLUSIONS: BPI can have a far-reaching economic impact on both individuals and society. If surgical reconstruction enables patients with a BPI to return to work, the indirect cost of this injury decreases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.