Expanded Indications for Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction in Patients Older Than 60 Years.

INTRODUCTION: Although nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) have long been praised for excellent cosmetic results and the resultant psychosocial benefits, the feasibility and safety of these procedures in patients older than 60 years have yet to be demonstrated in a large population. METHODS: Patients undergoing NSM with or without IBR at the MedStar Georgetown University Hospital between 1998 and 2017 were included. Patient demographics, surgical intervention, and complication and recurrence events were retrieved from electronic medical records. Primary outcomes were recurrence and complication rates by age groups older and younger than 60 years. RESULTS: There were 673 breasts from 397 patients; 58 (8.6%) older than 60 years and 615 (91.4%) younger than 60 years with mean follow-up of 5.43 (0.12) years. The mean age for those older than 60 was 63.9 (3.3) years, whereas that for those younger than 60 was 43.1 (7.9) years (P < 0.001). The older than 60 group had significantly higher prevalence of diabetes, rates of therapeutic (vs prophylactic) and unilateral (vs bilateral) NSM, and mastectomy weight. However, there were no significant differences by age group in complication rates or increased risk of locoregional or distant recurrence with age. CONCLUSIONS: Based on similar complication profiles in both age groups, we demonstrate safety and feasibility of both NSM and IBR in the aging population. Despite increased age and comorbidity status, appropriately selected older women were able to achieve similar outcomes to younger women undergoing NSM with or without IBR.

Impact of primary tumor resection and metastasectomy among gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors with liver metastases only on survival.

BACKGROUND: Despite recommendations for primary tumor resection (PTR) with or without liver resection (LR) in the patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) and isolated liver metastases, there are conflicting data for their impact on overall survival (OS). METHODS: 2320 patients with GEP-NETs and isolated liver metastases were identified from NCDB. Multiple imputations were used to accommodate missing data, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted to minimize bias. RESULTS: Patients with PTR had a greater OS than those without PTR (3-year rate of 88.6% vs. 69.9%, P < 0.001), which was preserved in the adjusted analysis (IPTW-adjusted HR = 0.387, 95% CI: 0.264-0.567; P < 0.001). Patients with LR had a greater OS than those without LR (3-year rate 87.7% vs. 75.2%, P = 0.003), which was also preserved in adjusted analysis (IPTW-adjusted HR = 0.450, 95% CI: 0.229-0.885; P = 0.021). Patients undergoing both PTR and LR had the greatest survival advantage than those with other surgical interventions (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Either PTR or LR is associated with improved survival for GEP-NET patients with isolated liver metastases. However, there remains significant selection bias in the current study, and caution should be exercised when selecting patients for resection.

Comparing Survival After Resection, Ablation, and Radiation in Small Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatectomy is the cornerstone of curative-intent treatment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC). However, in patients unable to be resected, data comparing efficacy of alternatives including thermal ablation and radiation therapy (RT) remain limited. Herein, we compared survival between resection and other liver-directed therapies for small ICC within a national cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinical stage I-III ICC < 3 cm diagnosed 2010-2018 who underwent resection, ablation, or RT were identified in the National Cancer Database. Overall survival (OS) was compared using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Of 545 patients, 297 (54.5%) underwent resection, 114 (20.9%) ablation, and 134 (24.6%) RT. Median OS was similar between resection and ablation [50.5 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 37.5-73.9; 39.5 months, 95% CI 28.7-58.4, p = 0.14], both exceeding that of RT (20.9 months, 95% CI 14.1-28.3). RT patients had high rates of stage III disease (10.4% RT vs. 1.8% ablation vs. 11.8% resection, p < 0.001), but the lowest rates of chemotherapy utilization (9.0% RT vs. 15.8% ablation vs. 38.7% resection, p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, resection and ablation were associated with reduced mortality compared with RT [hazard ratio (HR) 0.44, 95% CI 0.33-0.58 and HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38-0.75, p < 0.001, respectively]. CONCLUSION: Resection and ablation were associated with improved survival in patients with ICC < 3 cm compared with RT. Acknowledging confounders, anatomic constraints of ablation, limitations of available data, and need for prospective study, these results favor ablation in small ICC where resection is not feasible.

Tumor size and survival in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma treated with surgical resection or ablation.

OBJECTIVES: We performed a retrospective analysis within a national cancer registry on outcomes following resection or ablation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with clinical stage I-III iCCA diagnosed during 2010-2018, who underwent resection or ablation. Overall survival (OS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods. RESULTS: Of 2140 patients, 1877 (87.7%) underwent resection and 263 (12.3%) underwent ablation, with median tumor sizes of 5.5 and 3 cm, respectively. Overall, resection was associated with greater median OS (41.2 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 37.6-46.2) vs. 28 months (95% CI: 15.9-28.6) on univariable analysis (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference on multivariable analysis (p = 0.42); however, there was a significant interaction between tumor size and management. On subgroup analysis of patients with tumors <3 cm, there was no difference in OS between resection versus ablation. However, ablation was associated with increased mortality for tumors ≥3 cm. CONCLUSION: Although resection is associated with improved OS for tumors ≥3 cm, we observed no difference in survival between management strategies for tumors < 3 cm. Ablation may be an alternative therapeutic strategy for small iCCA, particularly in patients at risk for high surgical morbidity.

Outcomes of Immediate Multistaged Abdominal Wall Reconstruction of Infected Mesh: Predictors of Surgical Site Complications and Hernia Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Mesh infection is one of the most devastating complications after ventral hernia repair. To date, no clear consensus exists on the optimal timing of definitive abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) after excision of infected mesh. We evaluated outcomes of immediate multistaged AWR in patients with mesh infection. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with mesh infection who underwent immediate, multistaged AWR, which consisted of exploratory laparotomy with debridement and mesh explantation, followed by definitive AWR during the same admission. Primary outcomes included hernia recurrence and surgical site occurrences, defined as wound dehiscence, surgical site infection, hematoma, and seroma. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients with infected mesh were identified. At mean follow-up of 9.5 months, 5 patients (10.6%) experienced hernia recurrence. Higher body mass index (P = 0.006), bridge repair (P = 0.035), and postoperative surgical site infection (P = 0.005) were associated with hernia recurrence. CONCLUSION: Immediate multistaged AWR is an effective surgical approach in patients with infected mesh.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy With Immediate Reconstruction After Breast-Conserving Therapy and Radiation: Complications and Oncologic Safety.

INTRODUCTION: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved, patient-centered outcomes with demonstrated oncologic safety ( Ann Surg Oncol 2020;27:344-351). Indications for NSM continue to expand to patients outside of the traditional eligibility criteria, including those with prior breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with radiotherapy. Currently, limited data exist evaluating both short- and long-term outcomes in patients proceeding to NSM after prior BCT. METHODS: All patients undergoing bilateral NSM in a single institution from 2002 through 2017 with history of prior BCT were included in the final cohort, without exclusions. A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patient demographics, operative details, and complications. Outcomes assessed included early complications (<30 days from NSM), late complications (>30 days), rates of prosthetic failure, unplanned reoperations, and reconstructive failures, as well as oncologic safety. Student t , χ 2 , and Fisher exact tests were used to analyze outcomes of paired (BCT vs non-BCT) breasts within each patient. RESULTS: A total of 17 patients undergoing 34 NSMs were included. Each had a history of BCT and either ipsilateral breast recurrence (64.7%), risk-reducing NSM (23.5%), or a new contralateral primary cancer (11.8%). The cohort had a mean age of 51.1 years. With regard to acute complications (ischemia, infection, nipple-areolar complex or flap ischemia or necrosis, and wound dehiscence), there was no significant difference noted between breasts with prior BCT versus no prior BCT overall (41.2% vs 35.3%, respectively; P = 0.724). Complications occurring after 30 days postoperatively (capsular contracture, contour abnormality, animation deformity, bottoming out, rotation, and rippling) in prior BCT breasts versus no prior BCT had no significant differences overall (58.8% vs 41.2% respectively; P = 0.303). The mean follow-up was 5.5 years, during which no patients had a reported locoregional or distant recurrence in either breast. CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in early or late complications were identified between breasts in patients undergoing bilateral NSM with a history of unilateral BCT and XRT. In the 5.5 years of follow-up, there were no recurrences, lending support to NSM for management of recurrent disease in addition to National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended total mastectomy. We propose that NSM should not be contraindicated in patients exposed to radiation with BCT.

A Critical Appraisal of Late Complications of Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Breast Reconstruction Following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) offers improved aesthetics without compromising oncologic safety. Subpectoral breast reconstruction has long been standard practice, although prepectoral reconstruction has recently resurged in popularity. Due to this recent paradigm shift, studies comparing long-term outcomes by reconstructive plane are lacking. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on consecutive NSMs with implant-based reconstruction in either the prepectoral or subpectoral plane from 2014 to 2018. Patient demographics, implant specifications, and operative details were collected to evaluate primary outcomes of prosthetic failure and unplanned reoperations by reconstructive plane. Secondary outcomes included animation deformity, capsular contracture, rippling, plane change, and minor revisions, including fat grafting. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 405 NSMs were performed on 228 women (subpectoral = 202, prepectoral = 203), with a mean follow-up of 2.1 years (standard deviation 1.1). During the study period (2014-2018), a shift from subpectoral to predominantly prepectoral mastectomies occurred in 2017. Prepectoral reconstructions were more often direct-to-implant (DTI) compared with subpectoral (73.9% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.001). Prepectoral reconstruction demonstrated significantly reduced prosthetic failure (odds ratio [OR] 0.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.65) and unplanned reoperations (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24-0.77) compared with subpectoral reconstruction after controlling for implant characteristics and other possible confounders. Prepectoral patients experienced decreased animation deformity overall (19.7% vs. 0.0%, p < 0.001), with plane changes seen in 10.6% of subpectoral reconstructions for animation deformity correction. Prepectoral patients experienced an increase in rippling (15.3% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.003) without a significant increase in fat grafting (subpectoral = 11.6% vs. prepectoral = 12.3%, p = 0.829). CONCLUSIONS: This single-institution experience compares late complications of prepectoral and subpectoral implant-based reconstruction following NSM. Prepectoral reconstruction can be safely performed with improved understanding of mastectomy planes, readily affords DTI reconstruction, and reduces animation deformity at the expense of rippling.

Unintended Consequences of Health Care Reform: Impact of Changes in Payor Mix on Patient Safety Indicators.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on patient safety metrics at the hospital level by expansion status, across varying levels of safety-net burden, and over time. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Medicaid expansion has raised concerns over the influx of additional medically and socially complex populations on hospital systems. Whether increases in Medicaid and uninsured payor mix impact hospital performance metrics remains largely unknown. We sought to evaluate the effects of expansion on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-endorsed Patient Safety Indicators (PSI-90). METHODS: Three hundred fifty-eight hospitals were identified using State Inpatient Databases (2012-2015) from 3 expansions (KY, MD, NJ) and 2 nonexpansion (FL, NC) states. PSI-90 scores were calculated using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality modules. Hospital Medicaid and uninsured patients were categorized into safety-net burden (SNB) quartiles. Hospital-level, multivariate linear regression was performed to measure the effects of expansion and change in SNB on PSI-90. RESULTS: PSI-90 decreased (safety improved) over time across all hospitals (-5.2%), with comparable reductions in expansion versus nonexpansion states (-5.9% vs -4.7%, respectively; P = 0.441) and across high SNB hospitals within expansion versus nonexpansion states (-3.9% vs -5.2%, P = 0.639). Pre-ACA SNB quartile did not predict changes in PSI-90 post-ACA. However, when hospitals increased their SNB by 5%, they incurred significantly more safety events in expansion relative to nonexpansion states (+1.87% vs -14.0%, P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: Despite overall improvement in patient safety, increased SNB was associated with increased safety events in expansion states. Accordingly, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures may unintentionally penalize hospitals with increased SNB following Medicaid expansion.

Opioid-free anesthesia for patients undergoing mastectomy: A matched comparison.

Opioid-free anesthesia (OFA) is being implemented in breast surgery due to increased awareness of adverse effects and the national opioid crisis. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of OFA on postoperative pain and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in mastectomy patients. A single-institution matched-cohort study was conducted from 2014 to 2017 on 48 women undergoing mastectomy, with the majority also undergoing immediate prosthetic-based reconstruction. Patients received either conventional anesthesia (CA) or a novel OFA regimen. Primary outcomes included postoperative pain scores, opioid use, and need for antiemetics that were evaluated both in the PACU and on the hospital floors. No significant differences were found in PACU opioid or antiemetic use between OFA and CA. Pain scores in PACU and on POD0 were not significantly different. There was a significant but modest decrease on POD1 in OFA patients (3.9 vs. 5.1, P = .046). Additionally, patients with higher intraoperative opioid regimens experienced significantly increased PONV (P = .023). This study demonstrated the efficacy of OFA in controlling postoperative pain and nausea compared to a traditional opioid-based regimen. Regardless of intraoperative opioids, patients experienced similar postoperative opioid requirements and PONV with decreased pain scores. Thus, OFA is feasible in mastectomy patients and should be further evaluated in select patients.

Physician Perspectives on Fertility Preservation Discussions with Premenopausal Breast Cancer Patients: Results from a Multihospital Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Ten percent of new breast cancer diagnoses occur in premenopausal women, and oncologic therapies may compromise fertility. Thus, fertility preservation discussions (FPDs) and referral to fertility specialists are imperative prior to initiation of therapy. A previous retrospective chart review showed 45% FPD rates at our institution. The aim of this study is to investigate physician perspectives and limitations regarding FPD. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to 30 surgical, medical, and radiation oncologists across ten regional hospitals. Questions addressed provider demographics, and barriers to and facilitators of FPD. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 63.3%. Only 31.6% of physicians reported "always" documenting FPD. Respondents opined that the physician prescribing systemic therapy was the most appropriate person to provide FPD. Patient age, treatment with chemotherapy, and patient desire for FPD were more likely to increase FPD (p < 0.0001, p < 0.05, and p < 0.0001, respectively). The majority of physicians (84.2%) expressed intent to increase FPD rates. CONCLUSIONS: Fertility preservation is an integral aspect of breast cancer care, requiring thorough discussion and clear documentation. This study identified that physicians believe the medical oncologist is the most appropriate person to have FPDs with patients and that empowering patients to bring up fertility concerns may improve rates of FPDs. Education of physicians and patients about fertility preservation techniques is likely to improve FPDs.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: Timing and Postoperative Complications.

BACKGROUND: As the demand for nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) increases and surgeons expand the eligibility criteria, a subset of patients may become candidates following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, the impact of NACT on postoperative complications remains unclear as the current literature is discordant. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective chart review was performed on patients undergoing NSM from 1989 to 2017. Patient demographics, surgical intervention, systemic treatment, and complication rates were collected. Primary outcomes were 30-day postoperative complications, including nipple-areolar necrosis, skin flap necrosis, infection, wound dehiscence, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included characterization of the timing between chemotherapy and surgical intervention, and the impact on complication rates. Each breast was considered independently for analysis, and breasts undergoing either NACT or primary surgery (PS) were compared. RESULTS: Of the 832 breasts included, 88 (10.6%) received NACT and 744 (89.4%) underwent PS. Baseline complication rates were not significantly different between the NACT group and the PS group (5.7% vs. 10.6%; p = 0.119). When controlling for age, body mass index (BMI), smoking, and prior radiation, NACT was not a predictor of complications. Time from completion of NACT to PS occurred at a median of 40.5 days (interquartile range 31.3-55.3), and decreased intervals were not associated with increased complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications following NSM in patients completing NACT are comparable with those receiving PS. Patients undergoing NACT do not have a significantly increased risk of necrosis, unintended reoperations, or nipple loss. NACT should not be considered a contraindication for NSM.

Positive Nipple Margin After Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: An Alternative and Oncologically Safe Approach to Preserving the Nipple-Areolar Complex.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to describe a less aggressive approach to management of positive nipple margin following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM), allowing for preservation of the nipple-areolar complex (NAC). STUDY DESIGN: A single-institution retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing NSM from 1989 to 2017. Positive nipple margin was defined as any residual invasive carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) within the additional nipple margin. Management included complete NAC removal, subareolar shave biopsy, or observation alone. Primary outcomes included rates of positive nipple margin and local recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 819 breasts underwent NSM, yielding a total of 32 breasts (3.9%) with positive nipple margin. Management included 11 (34.4%) subareolar shave biopsies, 15 (46.9%) complete NAC excisions, and 5 (15.6%) with observation alone, plus 1 (3.1%) lost to follow-up. Final pathology after subareolar shave biopsy did not reveal any residual disease, and no patients developed NAC necrosis or required NAC removal. Final pathology after NAC excision revealed 3 of 15 with additional disease (1 invasive ductal carcinoma, 2 DCIS). Of the five patients who had no subsequent intervention, tumor pathology was DCIS in all cases. One patient received adjuvant radiation therapy. Mean time to intervention was 3.7 ± 1.9 with mean follow-up of 2.9 years. CONCLUSIONS: Management of positive nipple margin after NSM with subareolar shave biopsy is a safe alternative to preserve the NAC.

Underuse of exon mutational analysis for gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

BACKGROUND: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have become the guideline-recommended therapy for high-risk resected and advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Exon mutational analysis (EMA) is used to inform pretherapy response to TKI and may predict overall prognosis. Despite these benefits, EMA remains underused, and its impact on TKI therapy decision-making remains unexplored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort was established from 104 patients receiving treatment for GISTs from 2006 to 2017. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines indicate that EMA should be considered for all patients undergoing TKI therapy to identify genotypes that are likely, or unlikely, to respond to treatment. We first tracked guideline-considered EMA use and subsequent impact on treatment decision-making. A questionnaire was then administered to gastrointestinal medical oncologists to assess EMA perception. RESULTS: Among 104 GIST patients, 54 (52%) received TKI therapy. Of these, only 22 (41%) received EMA. Informed by EMA, treatment decisions included 59% who continued with original TKI therapy, 32% who switched to an alternative TKI, and 9% who discontinued or received no TKI. Although 92% of physicians indicated EMA was a valuable tool, only 62% indicated they used it "frequently" or "always" to inform treatment decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Less than half of patients receiving TKI therapy for GISTs received EMA at a comprehensive cancer center. Despite this low uptake, when it was performed, EMA guided alternative treatment decision in 41% of patients. Physician survey responses indicated that interventions targeting physician education and an electronic medical record reminder may improve EMA uptake.

Timing of radiation therapy in nipple-sparing mastectomy influences outcomes and patient-reported quality of life.

The aim of this study is to assess the complication profile and impact on patient-reported quality of life in those undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with immediate breast reconstruction and subsequent prosthetic reconstruction in patients with prior breast radiation therapy (pRT) vs those receiving adjuvant post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). An IRB-approved, retrospective analysis was performed from 2002 to 2014 to identify NSM patients that underwent pRT or PMRT. A 22-item Likert scale questionnaire was administered by a third party to register patient-reported quality of life. Forty patients met criteria for outcomes analysis, and 30 patients answered the questionnaire. Mean age was 45.6 years old and mean follow-up was 3.8 years. Complication rates for the PMRT cohort were 61.9% vs 31.6% in the pRT cohort, P = .067, and those requiring operative intervention were PMRT 38.1% vs pRT 5.3%, P = .021. Nipple-areolar complex survival was 100% in the pRT vs 85.7% in the PMRT, P = .233. Breast-related quality of life scores were superior in the pRT group within multiple domains. Patients are more likely to develop complications requiring an operative intervention and have decreased breast-related quality of life when undergoing NSM with PMRT compared to patients undergoing NSM having received pRT.

Contemporary trends and outcomes after liver transplantation and resection for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) has been shown to be superior to resection in highly selected patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), yet has traditionally been contraindicated for intrahepatic CCA (iCCA). Herein, we aimed to examine contemporary trends and outcomes for surgical resection and LT for iCCA. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients presenting with stage I-III iCCA between 2010 and 2018 who underwent resection or LT. Overall survival (OS) was compared with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox proportional hazards methods stratified by management. Secondary analysis of patients undergoing transplant for CCA was performed with the United Network for Organ Sharing database. RESULTS: Of 2565 patients, 2412 (94.0%) underwent resection and 153 (5.96%) LT of whom 84 (54.9%) received neoadjuvant therapy. Utilization of LT remained between 3.9% and 7.8% annually. Unadjusted 5-year OS was higher for LT than resection (59.8% vs 39.9%, P = .0067), yet adjusted analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.66-1.27; P = .58). On secondary analysis including 437 patients with all subtypes of CCA, unadjusted 5-year OS was higher for non-CCA indications (79% vs 52%-54%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Utilization of LT for iCCA remains low and many cases are likely incidental. Although partial hepatectomy remains the standard of care for patients with resectable disease, our findings suggest that highly selected patients with unresectable iCCA may achieve favorable outcomes after LT. Granular, prospective data are needed to identify patients most likely to benefit from transplant and allocate scarce liver grafts.

Direct-to-Implant versus Immediate Free Flap Reconstruction after Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Both direct-to-implant (DTI) and immediate free flap (FF) breast reconstruction following nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) have been described in the literature. However, there is a paucity of comparative studies between these two techniques. Furthermore, existing studies do not control for factors influencing ischemic complications. METHODS: A retrospective review of all NSMs performed at a single institution between January of 2014 and January of 2020 was performed. Immediate FF reconstructions were propensity score matched using probit regression to identify a comparable DTI cohort based on mastectomy weight, smoking, age, and history of radiotherapy. Primary outcomes of interest were 30-day ischemic complications. RESULTS: One hundred eight NSMs performed in 79 patients were included. Average age was 45.7 ± 10.5 years and mean body mass index was 27.1 ± 4.8 kg/m 2 . There were 54 breasts in both the DTI group and the immediate FF group. Median mastectomy weight in the DTI group was 508 g (interquartile range, 264 g) as compared with 473 g (interquartile range, 303 g) in the FF group ( P = 0.792). There was no significant difference in the rate of partial nipple-areola complex necrosis in the DTI and FF groups (5.6% versus 3.7%, respectively; P = 0.500) or mastectomy flap necrosis (5.6% versus 11.1%; P = 0.297). Both the DTI and FF groups had a total nipple-areola complex necrosis rate of 1.9% ( P = 0.752). CONCLUSION: Both DTI and immediate FF reconstruction can be safely offered to patients undergoing NSM while providing the benefit of a single reconstructive procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Decreased postoperative pain and opioid use following prepectoral versus subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy: A retrospective cohort study: Pain after pre- versus subpectoral reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral (PP) breast reconstruction is now commonly performed and minimizes dissection of the pectoralis major muscle. Data are lacking comparing the immediate postoperative recovery of these patients as compared with traditional subpectoral (SP) breast reconstruction. METHODS: From December 2015 to February 2017, 73 patients underwent PP prosthetic-based reconstruction at a single academic institution. PP cases were matched 1:1, by age and stage, to patients undergoing traditional SP reconstruction. Analysis of postoperative pain (visual analog scale) and opioid use (oral morphine equivalents, OME), was performed with both bi- and multivariate analyses. Additional outcomes explored included length of stay (LOS) and reconstructive intervention by plane of prosthetic reconstruction. RESULTS: A total of 146 patients were included in the final cohort. PP reconstruction was associated with higher rates of direct-to-implant reconstruction (84.9% vs. 34.3%, p <0.001) and higher rates of initial prosthetic fill (401.53 mL vs. 280.88 mL, p<0.001). Patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced postoperative pain (4.29 vs. 5.44, p<0.001) and in-hospital opioid use (62.63 mg OME vs. 98.84 mg OME, p = 0.03) compared with SP patients. This result remained in multivariate analysis for both pain (3.94 vs. 5.25, p<0.001) and opioid use (17.14 mg OME vs. 63.03 mg OME, p = 0.03). Additionally, patients undergoing PP reconstruction had significantly reduced overall LOS on multivariate analysis (21.36 vs. 26.28 h, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Following mastectomy, PP breast reconstruction results in significantly reduced pain, opioid use, and hospital LOS compared with SP reconstruction.

Acute Postoperative Complications in Prepectoral versus Subpectoral Reconstruction following Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Nipple-sparing mastectomy is associated with improved aesthetics and oncologic safety. Recently, there has been a resurgence in prepectoral reconstruction. Because of limited data comparing complication rates on patients undergoing prepectoral breast reconstruction, this study compared 30-day postoperative complications by plane of prosthetic placement. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted on all consecutive patients undergoing nipple-sparing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction with either prepectoral or subpectoral placement from 2014 to 2018. The primary outcome was a composite, acute 30-day postoperative complication, including nipple-areola complex necrosis, mastectomy flap necrosis, wound dehiscence, infection, hematoma, and seroma. Secondary outcomes included nipple loss and rates of unintended reoperations. Univariate and mixed effects multivariate logistic regression were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 228 patients and 405 breasts were included in the final cohort, with 202 in the subpectoral cohort and 203 in the prepectoral cohort. The overall complication rate was 7.65 percent, with no significant difference between subpectoral and prepectoral cohorts (9.41 percent versus 5.91 percent, respectively; p = 0.148). Prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly reduced ischemic complications, including nipple loss because of necrosis (2.97 percent versus 0.49 percent, respectively; p = 0.015) and mastectomy flap necrosis (5.45 percent versus 0 percent; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in rates of infection, hematoma, seroma, or implant loss/exchange. CONCLUSIONS: Prepectoral reconstruction is associated with similar overall 30-day postoperative complications and reoperations compared to traditional subpectoral implants. However, prepectoral reconstruction was associated with significantly decreased ischemic complications, including mastectomy flap necrosis and nipple-areola complex loss because of necrosis. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Meta-Analysis of Surgeon Burnout Syndrome and Specialty Differences.

OBJECTIVE: Surgeon burnout compromises the quality of life of physicians and the delivery of care to patients. Burnout rates and interpretation of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) complicates the interpretation of surgeon burnout. The purpose of this study is to apply a standardized interpretation of severe surgeon burnout termed, "burnout syndrome" to analyze inherent variation within surgical specialties. DESIGN: A systematic literature search was performed using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE to identify studies reporting MBI data by surgical specialty. Data extraction was performed to isolate surgeon specific data. SETTING: A meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 16 cross-sectional studies were included in this meta-analysis, totaling 3581 subjects. A random effects model approximated burnout syndrome at 3.0% (95% CI: 2.0%-5.0%; I2 = 78.1%). Subscale analysis of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment indicated subscale burnout in 30.0% (CI: 25.0%-36.0%; I2 = 93.2%), 34.0% (CI: 25.0%-43.0%; I2 = 96.9%), and 25.0% (CI: 18.0%-32.0%; I2 = 96.5%) of surgeons, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.001) in MBI subscale scoring existed among surgical specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 3% of surgeons suffer from extreme forms of burnout termed "burnout syndrome," although surgeon burnout may occur in up to 34% of surgeons, characterized by high burnout in 1 of 3 subscales. Surgical specialties have significantly different rates of burnout subscales. Future burnout studies should target the specialty-specific level to understand inherent differences in an effort to better understand methods of improving surgeon burnout.