Management of sternal wounds by limited debridement and partial bilateral pectoralis major myocutaneous advancement flaps in 25 patients: a less invasive approach.

PURPOSE: Because sternal wound complications after sternotomy can be life threatening and often occur in very sick patients, optimal management of these complications remains an important topic. To decrease postoperative morbidity and shorten the recovery period, the senior author (J.A.A.) sought a less invasive approach to sternal debridement and flap closure in carefully selected patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach by obtaining specific outcomes data from a series of patients treated with this less invasive method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the most recent 174 sternal wounds treated by the senior author, 25 underwent limited debridement and partial bilateral pectoralis major advancement flaps. The charts of these 25 patients were reviewed and analyzed. RESULTS: In the 25 patients who underwent limited debridement, there were no mortalities intraoperatively or during the 30-day postoperative period. Six patients (24%) experienced complications after debridement, including 1 recurrent sternal wound infection, 1 partial wound dehiscence, 1 seroma, 1 hematoma, and 1 wound edge necrosis requiring revision. Mean length of hospitalization after the procedure was 10 days, compared with 30 days (P = 0.0001) as previously reported with full debridement (Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114:676). Mean estimated intraoperative blood loss was reduced from 331 mL during full debridement to 93 mL (P < 0.0001) with limited debridement (Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114:676). There was no increase in postoperative morbidity (24 % vs 13 %, P = 0.2117). CONCLUSIONS: The authors advocate limited sternal debridement and partial bilateral pectoralis major myocutaneous advancement flaps in patients with limited wounds and partially or fully healed sternums. We demonstrate that the procedure is effective but less invasive than complete debridement, reduces operative time and blood loss, and shortens length of hospitalization.

Preoperative patient education for breast reconstruction: a systematic review of the literature.

This study aims to assess the current state of patient educational tools available for the purposes of educating women about postmastectomy breast reconstruction. A systematic review of the English language literature was conducted between the years 1966 and 2009 of all studies pertaining to the use of educational materials for breast reconstruction. MEDLINE, CINAHAL, PsycINFO, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and the Science Citation Index were searched. Only studies that both employed and evaluated a patient educational tool in the setting of postmastectomy reconstruction were selected for review. Qualifying studies were then evaluated with respect to their study design, sample size, and outcome measure evaluated. Each educational tool identified was similarly evaluated with respect to its development process, content, and educational medium. A total of 497 articles were retrieved. Of these, only seven met our inclusion criteria. These publications evaluated a total of seven educational tools. Among them were employed various mediums including written, visual, and audio materials. Detailed review revealed that the development of only one educational program included an educational needs assessment. Only two of the seven studies identified evaluated the efficacy of their educational tool using a randomized controlled trial study design. Outcome measures evaluated varied among the studies identified and included: knowledge gains (n = 4), the 'yes' or 'no' decision to undergo reconstruction (n = 3), satisfaction with decision regarding reconstruction (n = 1), decisional conflict (n = 3), and type of reconstruction (n = 3). This review highlights the need for well-designed, methodologically sound research into patient education regarding breast reconstruction. Such information is invaluable in developing patient education programs and decision aids that aim at patient empowerment.

An operative approach to the treatment of refractory cutaneous nasal sarcoid: a case report and review of the literature.

The treatment of cutaneous sarcoid is often frustrating, because lesions may be refractory to treatment, or recurrent. There is little information in the literature regarding the surgical treatment of cutaneous sarcoid. Such treatment may become necessary in cases that do not respond to systemic treatments and create functional impairments. We present a 7-year follow-up of a patient with cutaneous nasal sarcoid that was successfully treated surgically.

The influence of AlloDerm on expander dynamics and complications in the setting of immediate tissue expander/implant reconstruction: a matched-cohort study.

AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, NJ) is gaining acceptance in tissue expander/implant (TE/I) breast reconstruction. Anecdotal evidence suggests its use limits postoperative musculoskeletal morbidity and allows injection of greater initial fill-volumes and rapid postoperative expansion. The objective of this study was to evaluate AlloDerm's impact on expansion rates in immediate TE/I reconstruction. A matched, retrospective cohort study was performed. Medical records of patients who underwent immediate TE/I reconstruction from 2004 to 2005 were reviewed. Two cohorts were identified: (1) underwent TE/I reconstruction with AlloDerm, and (2) underwent standard TE/I reconstruction. Individuals were matched 1:1 on the basis of: expander size (+/-100 mL), history of irradiation, and indication for mastectomy. Cohorts were compared for intraoperative volume injected (mL), rate of postoperative expansion (mL/ injection), number of expansions, and time to completion of expansion (days). Incidence of complications was evaluated. Pairwise comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon sign rank test and McNemar test. Ninety immediate TE/I reconstructions were evaluated. Forty-five TE/I-AlloDerm reconstructions were matched to standard TE/I reconstructions. Intraoperatively, expanders in the AlloDerm and non-AlloDerm cohorts were filled to a mean volume of 223.8 and 201.1 mL (P = 0.180). Median number of expansions performed was 5 and 6 in the AlloDerm and non-AlloDerm cohorts (P = 0.117). There was no difference in the mean rate of postoperative tissue expansion (AlloDerm: 97 mL/injection versus non-AlloDerm: 95 mL/injection [P = 0.907]), nor in the incidence of complications (P = 0.289). Minor complications occurred in 13.1% of AlloDerm cases (cellulitis [n = 3], seroma [n = 3], hematoma [n = 1]. Although this study does not address AlloDerm's efficacy in decreasing morbidity or improving esthetic outcomes in TE/I reconstruction, it indicates that AlloDerm does not increase the rate of tissue expansion after immediate TE placement. It does not, however, appear to increase the risk of postoperative complications.

Improving access to care: breast surgeons, the gatekeepers to breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Fewer than half of patients undergo reconstruction after breast cancer treatment, despite its quality of life benefits. Earlier studies demonstrated that most general surgeons do not discuss reconstructive options with patients. The aim of this study was to examine the likelihood of reconstruction within a cohort of mastectomy patients and compare rates of reconstruction between those referred and not referred for plastic surgery evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of the records of 471 consecutive patients between the ages of 19 and 94 years who underwent mastectomy between 2003 and 2007. Variables evaluated were age, body mass index, diabetes, laterality (unilateral vs bilateral), TNM staging, history of radiation, smoking history, insurance type, and race. RESULTS: Of 471 patients, 313 were referred for consultation with a plastic surgeon and 158 were not; 91.7% of those referred were reconstructed and 100% of those not referred were not reconstructed. The 2 groups differed considerably in terms of age (mean age 61.84 years in the nonreferred group vs 51.83 years in the referred group), body mass index (25.9 in referred group, 27 in nonreferred group), diabetes (15% in nonreferred group vs 3.5% in referred group), and laterality (14% of nonreferred group underwent bilateral mastectomies vs 26% of those referred). The groups did not differ significantly in terms of race or tobacco use. Those with private insurance were more likely to be reconstructed, but no independent effect of insurance type was seen on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The breast surgeon's decision to refer a patient for reconstruction significantly affects whether the patient will receive breast reconstruction. Factors that appear to influence the referral decision are age, diabetes, body mass index, and laterality of mastectomy (bilateral more than unilateral).

How should quality-of-life data be incorporated into a cost analysis of breast reconstruction? A consideration of implant versus free TRAM flap procedures.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have compared the costs of implant and transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flap reconstruction, none has considered how quality-of-life data would affect such an analysis. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was used. Medical costs associated with the two procedures were obtained from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes. The diagnosis-related group code associated with each ICD-9 code was referenced in Medicare's MedPAR database. A cost-to-charge ratio was calculated using hospital charges covered by Medicare and Medicare reimbursements for each diagnosis-related group code. This ratio was multiplied by the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database mean charge. Hypothetical utilities were used to perform a sensitivity analysis and determine the effects of quality-of-life data on costs. RESULTS: The mean lifetime cost was $14,080 for a free TRAM flap and $16,940 for an implant, a $2860 difference. Based on a sensitivity analysis, however, this cost difference decreased as age at initial procedure increased. Furthermore, a consideration of patient utility that increased the health-related quality-of-life score (based on a scale of 0 to 1) for implants even slightly relative to free TRAM flaps made the implants cost effective. The health-related quality-of-life difference needed to generate a cost per quality-adjusted life-year for breast implants below an acceptable threshold was extremely small (0.64 percent). CONCLUSIONS: To fully evaluate the cost difference between these procedures, a cost-effectiveness analysis must be performed that incorporates quality-of-life data. Such data would significantly affect assessments of the cost difference between implant and autogenous tissue reconstruction.