Systematic review of the venous thromboembolism risk assessment models used in aesthetic plastic surgery.

BACKGROUND: A reliable venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment model (RAM) can assist surgeons in identifying patients who would benefit from VTE prophylaxis. This systematic review was aimed at summarising the current available evidence on VTE RAMs used in aesthetic plastic surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to include primary studies describing VTE RAMs in aesthetic plastic surgery from 1946 to February 2019. The objective was to compare the different VTE RAMs described for aesthetic plastic surgery to recommend a reliable model to stratify patients. RESULTS: Of the 557 articles identified in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases, six articles were included in the final review. Five different RAMs were used in the included studies: Caprini 2005 RAM, Caprini 2010 RAM, Davison-Caprini 2004 RAM, the American Society of Anaesthesiologist's (ASA) physical status grading system and a tool developed by Wes et al. The difference in risk weightage amongst the tools along with the VTE incidences for different categories was compared. The Caprini 2005 RAM was the most widely reported tool and validated in plastic surgery patients. CONCLUSION: Amongst the five different tools currently used, the Caprini 2005 RAM was the most widely reported. This tool was validated in plastic surgery patients and reported to be a sensitive and reliable tool for VTE risk stratification; therefore, current data support its use until further higher quality evidence becomes available. Because of the heterogeneity of the data and low quality of the current evidence, a definitive recommendation cannot be made on the best VTE RAM for patients undergoing aesthetic plastic surgery. This paper highlights the need for randomised controlled trials evaluating the various RAMs which are essential to support future recommendations and guidelines.

Patient-reported outcome and cost implication of acute salvage of infected implant-based breast reconstruction with negative pressure wound therapy with Instillation (NPWTi) compared to standard care.

INTRODUCTION: Implant loss due to infection is the most devastating complication of implant-based breast reconstruction. The use of negative pressure wound therapy with instillation(NPWTi) for salvage of infected implant-based breast reconstructions has shown promising results allowing early reinsertion of a new implant as an alternative to the current management with delayed reinsertion. This study compares the patient-reported outcome and cost implication of NPWTi to the current management. METHODS: Twenty cases of infected breast implants treated with NPWTi(V.A.C. VERAFLO™ Therapy), followed by early reinsertion of new implants were compared to 20 cases that had delayed reinsertion(non-NPWTi). Patient satisfaction was evaluated using the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The average cost per patient was calculated using total operative expense, cost of inpatient stay, investigations, antibiotics, and outpatient visits. RESULTS: Treatment with NPWTi allowed earlier reinsertion of a new implant (NPWTi: 10.3 ± 2.77days vs. non-NPWTi: 247.45±111.28days, p<0.001). Patients in the NPWTi group reported higher satisfaction. The average cost per patient for NPWTi and non-NPWTi was £14,343.13±£2,786.70 and £8,920.31±£3,005.73, respectively(p<0.001). All patients treated with NPWTi had one admission and spent 11.9 ± 4.1days as inpatients, while non-NPWTi patients had 2.1 ± 0.3 admissions(p<0.001) and spent 7.1 ± 5.8days(p<0.004) as inpatients. Patients treated with NPWTi had more procedures (NPWTi:3.35±0.81 Vs. non-NPWTi:2.2 ± 0.41, p = 0.006); however, three non-NPWTi cases required flap reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with NPWTi reported higher satisfaction, received a new and earlier implant, and had fewer admissions and outpatient visits; however, they incurred higher average costs, longer inpatient stays, and underwent more procedures. Early implant reinsertion preserves skin envelope; hence avoiding additional cost and stress related to further major autologous reconstruction.

Radiation-induced fibrosis in breast cancer: A protocol for an observational cross-sectional pilot study for personalised risk estimation and objective assessment.

INTRODUCTION: About 30% of patients request breast reconstruction following surgery for breast cancer, but radiation therapy negatively influences the outcome. Post-reconstruction radiotherapy is associated with more complications, including more severe capsular contracture and inferior cosmetic results. In general, less fibrosis is seen if autologous reconstruction is performed after radiotherapy, so surgeons will often delay reconstruction until after radiotherapy is complete. Drawbacks to this approach include additional surgery, recuperation, cost, and an extended reconstructive process. Randomised clinical trials are required to determine the best approach. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of this cross-sectional pilot study is to see if it is feasible to recruit women, and gather the required data. This information will be used to design a subsequent, larger study whose aim is to identify factors that increase the risk of radiation-induced fibrosis, and use these to develop a personalised risk-prediction tool, to enable the clinician and patient to have a more informed discussion when treatment for breast cancer is being discussed. Identification of the risk factors will also enable the development of methods to minimise the risk, which would have applications in other medical conditions where fibrosis is a problem. In addition, the project will develop objective methods of assessing fibrosis, and will determine the psychological and economic impacts that fibrosis has affected individuals. A better understanding of the long-term effects of radiotherapy on normal tissues such as the heart and lungs may also have applications in other medical conditions where fibrosis is a problem. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been submitted for ethical approval (REC reference). Findings will be made available to patients and clinicians through presentations at national and international meetings, peer-reviewed publications, social media and patient support groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (after REC approval).

Protocol for a systematic review of the efficacy of fat grafting and platelet-rich plasma for wound healing.

BACKGROUND: The use of fat grafting as a reconstructive surgical option is becoming much more common. Adipose-derived stem cells found in fat grafts are believed to facilitate wound healing via differentiation into fibroblasts and keratinocytes and the release of pro-healing growth factors. Several small studies have shown a positive effect of fat grafting in healing of wounds of a variety of aetiologies. When fat is combined with autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP), there may be enhanced healing effects. This may be due to the pro-angiogenic and anti-inflammatory effects of PRP. We aim to synthesise the current evidence on combination fat grafting and PRP for wound healing to establish the efficacy of this technique. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a comprehensive literature search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Science Citation Index, and Google Scholar databases (up to July 2017) to identify studies on fat grafting and PRP for wound healing. All primary studies and systematic reviews of these studies will be included, except case reports and case series with fewer than three patients, to evaluate the outcome of fat grafting and PRP on wound healing either on its own or when compared to other studies. Primary outcome measures are expected to be the proportion of total wounds healed at 12 weeks and the average wound healing time (time for 100% re-epithelialisation). Expected secondary outcome measures are the proportion of wounds achieving 50% wound healing, the type of wound benefitting most from fat grafting, economic evaluation, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. Subgroup analysis will be performed for the proportions of wounds healed based on wound aetiology. DISCUSSION: This review will provide robust evidence of the efficacy of fat grafting and PRP for wound healing. This is an emerging technique, and this review is expected to guide clinical practice and ongoing research aimed at improving wound care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016049881.

The CelluTome epidermal graft-harvesting system: a patient-reported outcome measure and cost evaluation study.

Conventional split skin grafts (SSG) require anaesthesia, specialist equipment and can have high donor site (DS) morbidity. The CelluTome epidermal graft-harvesting device is a novel alternative, providing pain-free epidermal skin grafts (ESG) in the outpatient setting, with projected minimal DS trauma and improved patient satisfaction. This study aimed to compare ESG with SSG by evaluating patient-related outcome measures (PROMs) and the cost implications of both. Twenty patients answered a graft satisfaction questionnaire that evaluated: donor/graft site noticeability, aesthetic concerns, adverse problems and patient satisfaction. Cost/patient was calculated based on total operative expenses and five clinic follow-ups. In 100% of the ESG cases, there were no DS noticeability or adverse problems compared to 25% in the SSG group. Complete satisfaction with DS appearance was observed in 100% of the ESG cases (50% SSG). Noticeability, adverse problems and overall satisfaction were significantly better in ESG cases (P < 0.05). Graft site parameters were comparable with similar healing outcomes. The cost per patient for ESG was £431 and £1489 for SSG, with an annual saving of £126 960 based on 10 grafts/month. For the right patient, CelluTome provides comparable wound healing, with reduced DS morbidity and higher patient satisfaction.

Epidermal grafting versus split-thickness skin grafting for wound healing (EPIGRAAFT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Split-thickness skin grafting (SSG) is an important modality for wound closure. However, the donor site becomes a second, often painful wound, which may take more time to heal than the graft site itself and holds the risk of infection and scarring. Epidermal grafting (EG) is an alternative method of autologous skin grafting that harvests only the epidermal layer of the skin by applying continuous negative pressure on the normal skin to raise blisters. This procedure has minimal donor site morbidity and is relatively pain-free, allowing autologous skin grafting in an outpatient setting. We plan to compare EG to SSG and to further investigate the cellular mechanism by which each technique achieves wound healing. METHODS/DESIGN: EPIGRAAFT is a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial that compares the efficacy and wound-healing mechanism of EG with SSG for wound healing. The primary outcome measures are the proportion of wounds healed in 6 weeks and the donor site healing time. The secondary outcome measures include the mean time for complete wound healing, pain score, patient satisfaction, health care utilisation, cost analysis, and incidence of adverse events. DISCUSSION: This study is expected to define the efficacy of EG and promote further understanding of the mechanism of wound healing by EG compared to SSG. The results of this study can be used to inform the current best practise for wound care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier, NCT02535481 . Registered on 11 August 2015.