Breast cancer patients' needs and perspectives on a one-on-one peer support program: quantitative and qualitative analyses.

PURPOSE: Although peer support programs as a health resource have become increasingly popular, only limited studies evaluated the added value of one-on-one peer support for breast cancer patients. This study aims to bridge the knowledge gap by focusing on two related research topics. First, we evaluated emotional well-being and (unmet) needs regarding supportive care. Second, we evaluated patients' perspectives on their experiences after having one-on-one peer support. METHODS: A quantitative analysis was conducted to provide insight in patients' symptoms of anxiety and depression (HADS), quality of life (EORTC-QLQ-C30), and supportive care needs (CaSUN-questionnaire). Furthermore, approximately 1 year after the implementation of a one-on-one peer support program, focus groups were conducted to evaluate patients' perspectives regarding one-on-one peer support. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five of 537 patients diagnosed with breast cancer between 2019 and 2020 completed the questionnaires. Quantitative analysis showed increased symptoms of anxiety and depression among breast cancer patients and lower scores on all EORTC-QLQ-C30 domains compared to the Dutch normative population. Of all patients, 27.6% (95%CI = 0.22-0.34) reported to have unmet needs regarding emotional support and 23.1% (95%CI = 0.18-0.29) reported an unmet need to talk to someone who has experienced breast cancer. For the qualitative analysis, 19 breast cancer patients who were taking part in the one-on-one peer support program participated in three focus groups. Benefits, limitations, and wishes regarding the one-on-one peer support program were discussed. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients showed increased anxiety and depression and lower quality of life, physical, role, emotional, cognitive, and social functioning compared to the Dutch normative population. Almost one-third of breast cancer patients reported unmet needs regarding emotional support and a desire to talk to other breast cancer patients. These (unmet) needs can successfully be met by providing a low-threshold one-on-one peer support program.

Physical and mental health of breast cancer patients and survivors before and during successive SARS-CoV-2-infection waves.

PURPOSE: During the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave, a deterioration in emotional well-being and increased need for mental health care were observed among patients treated or being treated for breast cancer. In this follow-up study, we assessed patient-reported quality of life (QoL), physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave in a large, representative cohort. METHODS: This longitudinal cohort study was conducted within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA breast cancer cohort. To assess patient-reported QoL, physical functioning and psychosocial well-being, COVID-19-specific surveys were completed by patients during the first and second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves (April and November 2020, respectively). An identical survey was completed by a comparable reference population during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection waves. All surveys included the validated EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23, HADS and "De Jong-Gierveld Loneliness" questionnaires. Pre-COVID-19 EORTC-QLQ-C30/BR23 and HADS outcomes were available from UMBRELLA. Response rates were 69.3% (n = 1106/1595) during the first SARS-CoV-2-infection wave and 50.9% (n = 822/1614) during the second wave. A total of 696 patients responded during both SARS-CoV-2-infection waves and were included in the analysis comparing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave to PROs during the first wave. Moreover, PROs reported by all patients during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave (n = 822) were compared to PROs of a similar non-cancer reference population (n = 241) and to their pre-COVID-19 PROs. RESULTS: Patient-reported QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer remained stable or improved from the first to the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. The proportion of emotional loneliness reduced from 37.6 to 29.9% of patients. Compared to a similar non-cancer reference population, physical, emotional, and cognitive functioning, future perspectives and symptoms of dyspnea and insomnia were worse in patients treated or being treated for breast cancer during the second SARS-CoV-2-infection wave. PROs in the second wave were similar to pre-COVID-19 PROs. CONCLUSION: Although patients scored overall worse than individuals without breast cancer, QoL, physical functioning, and psychosocial well-being did not deteriorate between the first and second wave. During the second wave, PROs were similar to pre-COVID-19 values. Overall, current findings are cautiously reassuring for future mental health of patients treated or being treated for breast cancer.

Breast cancer recurrence after immediate and delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I2 -statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects. RESULTS: Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01-0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03-0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00-0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR. LAY SUMMERY: Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping in Breast Cancer Patients Through Fluorescent Imaging Using Indocyanine Green: The INFLUENCE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the (sentinel) lymph node detection rate of indocyanine green (ICG)-fluorescent imaging versus standard-of-care 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for sentinel lymph node (SLN)-mapping. BACKGROUND: The current gold standard for axillary staging in patients with breast cancer is sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) using radio-guided surgery using radioisotope technetium ( 99m Tc), sometimes combined with blue dye. A promising alternative is fluorescent imaging using ICG. METHODS: In this noninferiority trial, we enrolled 102 consecutive patients with invasive early-stage, clinically node-negative breast cancer. Patients were planned for breast conserving surgery and SLNB between August 2020 and June 2021. The day or morning before surgery, patients were injected with 99m Tc-nanocolloid. In each patient, SLNB was first performed using ICG-fluorescent imaging, after which excised lymph nodes were tested with the gamma-probe for 99m Tc-uptake ex vivo, and the axilla was checked for residual 99m Tc-activity. The detection rate was defined as the proportion of patients in whom at least 1 (S)LN was detected with either tracer. RESULTS: In total, 103 SLNBs were analyzed. The detection rate of ICG-fluorescence was 96.1% [95% confidence interval (95% CI)=90.4%-98.9%] versus 86.4% (95% CI=78.3%-92.4%) for 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. The detection rate for pathological lymph nodes was 86.7% (95% CI=59.5%-98.3%) for both ICG and 99m Tc-nanocoilloid. A median of 2 lymph nodes were removed. ICG-fluorescent imaging did not increase detection time. No adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: ICG-fluorescence showed a higher (S)LN detection rate than 99m Tc-nanocoilloid, and equal detection rate for pathological (S)LNs. ICG-fluorescence may be used as a safe and effective alternative to 99m Tc-nanocoilloid for SLNB in patients with early-stage breast cancer.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision in individuals (being) treated for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate perceived access to health care and preferences for health care provision among patients (being) treated for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Longitudinal study within the prospective, multicenter UMBRELLA cohort of patients (being) treated for breast cancer. All cohort participants enrolled in UMBRELLA between October 2013 and November 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey during the first and second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., April 2020 and November 2020, respectively. RESULTS: In total, 1106 (69.3%) and 822 (50.9%) cohort participants completed the survey in the first and second wave, respectively. The proportion of patients experiencing that their treatment or follow-up care was affected due to COVID-19 decreased from 28.4% (n = 198) in April 2020 to 14.8% (n = 103) in November 2020. Throughout the pandemic, one or more hospital consultations were postponed in 10.0% (n = 82) of all patients and changed into a teleconsultation in 23.1% (n = 190). The proportion of patients who experienced a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner due to COVID-19 decreased from 29.9% (n = 204) in the first wave to 20.8% (n = 145) in the second wave. In-person consultations remained most preferred in 35.2% (n = 289) of all patients. Nearly half of all patients (48.3%, n = 396) indicated that telehealth would be a useful alternative for in-person consultations in future. CONCLUSION: Perceived access to health care has improved substantially throughout the pandemic. Digital care is well received by patients (being) treated for breast cancer.

(Ex-)breast cancer patients with (pre-existing) symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with (perceived) access to health care among (ex-)breast cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Cross-sectional study within a large prospective, multicenter cohort of (ex-)breast cancer patients, i.e., UMBRELLA. All participants enrolled in the UMBRELLA cohort between October 2013 and April 2020 were sent a COVID-19-specific survey, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 1051 (66.0%) participants completed the survey. During COVID-19, 284 (27.0%) participants reported clinically relevant increased levels of anxiety and/or depression, i.e., total HADS score ≥ 12. Participants with anxiety and/or depression reported statistically significant higher barriers to contact their general practitioner (47.5% vs. 25.0%, resp.) and breast cancer physicians (26.8% vs. 11.2%, resp.) compared to participants without these symptoms. In addition, a higher proportion of participants with anxiety and/or depression reported that their current treatment or (after)care was affected by COVID-19 compared to those without these symptoms (32.7% vs. 20.5%, resp.). Factors independently associated with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 were pre-existent anxiety (OR 6.1, 95% CI 4.1-9.2) or depression (OR 6.0, 95% CI 3.5-10.2). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, (ex-)breast cancer patients with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression experience higher barriers to contact health care providers. Also, they more often report that their health care was affected by COVID-19. Risk factors for anxiety and/or depression during COVID-19 are pre-existent symptoms of anxiety or depression. Extra attention-including mental health support-is needed for this group.

Hand Posturing Is a Nonverbal Indicator of Catastrophic Thinking for Finger, Hand, or Wrist Injury.

BACKGROUND: Prior research documents that greater psychologic distress (anxiety/depression) and less effective coping strategies (catastrophic thinking, kinesophobia) are associated with greater pain intensity and greater limitations. Recognition and acknowledgment of verbal and nonverbal indicators of psychologic factors might raise opportunities for improved psychologic health. There is evidence that specific patient words and phrases indicate greater catastrophic thinking. This study tested proposed nonverbal indicators (such as flexion of the wrist during attempted finger flexion or extension of uninjured fingers as the stiff and painful finger is flexed) for their association with catastrophic thinking. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patients with specific protective hand postures during physical examination have greater pain interference (limitation of activity in response to nociception), limitations, symptoms of depression, catastrophic thinking (protectiveness, preparation for the worst), and kinesophobia (fear of movement)? (2) Do greater numbers of protective hand postures correlate with worse scores on these measures? METHODS: Between October 2014 and September 2016, 156 adult patients with stiff or painful fingers within 2 months after sustaining a finger, hand, or wrist injury were invited to participate in this study. Six patients chose not to participate as a result of time constraints and one patient was excluded as a result of inconsistent scoring of a possible hand posture, leaving 149 patients for analysis. We asked all patients to complete a set of questionnaires and a sociodemographic survey. We used Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression, Upper Extremity Physical Function, and Pain Interference computer adaptive test (CAT) questionnaires. We used the Abbreviated Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS-4) to measure catastrophic thinking in response to nociception. Finally, we used the Tampa Scale of Kinesophobia (TSK) to assess fear of movement. The occurrence of protective hand postures during the physical examination was noted by both the physician and researcher. For uncertainty or disagreement, a video of the physical examination was recorded and a group decision was made. RESULTS: Patients with one or more protective hand postures did not score higher on the PROMIS Pain Interference CAT (hand posture: 59 [56-64]; no posture: 59 [54-63]; difference of medians: 0; p = 0.273), Physical Function CAT (32 ± 8 versus 34 ± 8; mean difference: 2 [confidence interval {CI}, -0.5 to 5]; p = 0.107), nor the Depression CAT (48 [41-55] versus 48 [42-53]; difference of medians: 0; p = 0.662). However, having at least one hand posture was associated with a higher degree of catastrophic thinking (PCS scores: 13 [6-26] versus 10 [3-16]; difference of medians: 3; p = 0.0104) and a higher level of kinesophobia (TSK: 40 ± 6 versus 38 ± 6; mean difference: -2 [CI, -4 to -1]; p = 0.0420). Greater catastrophic thinking was associated with a greater number of protective hand postures on average (rho: 0.20, p = 0.0138). CONCLUSIONS: Protective hand postures and (based on prior research) specific words and phrases are associated with catastrophic thinking and kinesophobia, less effective coping strategies that hinder recovery. Surgeons can learn to recognize these signs and begin to treat catastrophic thinking and kinesophobia starting with compassion, empathy, and patience and be prepared to add formal support (such as cognitive-behavioral therapy) to help facilitate recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Efficacy of indocyanine green fluorescence for the identification of non-palpable breast tumours: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Accurate tumour localization is crucial for precise surgical targeting and complete tumour removal. Indocyanine green fluorescence, an increasingly used technique in oncological surgery, has shown promise in localizing non-palpable breast tumours. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the efficacy of indocyanine green fluorescence for the identification of non-palpable breast tumours. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, including studies from 2012 to 2023. Studies reporting the proportion of breast tumours identified using indocyanine green fluorescence were included. The quality of the studies and their risk of bias were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies ('MINORS') tool. The following outcomes were collected: identification rate, clear resection margins, specimen volume, operative time, re-operation rate, adverse events, and complications. RESULTS: In total, 2061 articles were screened for eligibility, resulting in 11 studies, with 366 patients included: two RCTs, three non-randomized comparative studies, four single-arm studies, and two case reports. All studies achieved a 100 per cent tumour identification rate with indocyanine green fluorescence, except for one study, with an identification rate of 87 per cent (13/15). Clear resection margins were found in 88-100 per cent of all patients. Reoperation rates ranged from 0.0 to 5.4 per cent and no complications or adverse events related to indocyanine green occurred. CONCLUSION: Indocyanine green fluorescence has substantial theoretical advantages compared with current routine localization methods. Although a limited number of studies were available, the current literature suggests that indocyanine green fluorescence is a useful, accurate, and safe technique for the intraoperative localization of non-palpable breast tumours, with equivalent efficacy compared with other localization techniques, potentially reducing tumour-positive margins.

Risk factors for unplanned reoperation during the expansion phase in two-stage breast reconstruction in the Dutch Breast Implant Registry.

BACKGROUND: The majority of postmastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBRs) are currently performed in two stages using a tissue expander (TE). However, complications during the expansion phase occur regularly, leading to unplanned reoperations and/or reconstruction failure. This study aimed to identify risk factors for unplanned reoperation after TE placement, assessed the time until unplanned and planned reoperation, and investigated indications for unplanned reoperation. METHODS: Patient and surgery-related characteristics of patients who underwent two-stage PMBR between 2017 and 2021 were collected from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR). Unplanned reoperation was defined as TE explantation followed by either no replacement or replacement with the same or a different TE. Co-variate adjusted characteristics associated with unplanned reoperation were determined using backward stepwise selection and multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: In total, 2529 patients (mean age, 50.2 years) were included. Unplanned reoperation occurred in 19.4 percent of all registered TEs (n=3190). Independent factors associated with unplanned reoperation were BMI≥25 kg/m 2 (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR]=1.63;99% Confidence Interval [99%CI]=1.20-2.57 for BMI 25-29.9 kg/m2, aOR=2.57;99%CI=1.74-3.78 for BMI≥30 kg/m 2), low institutional volume (aOR=1.51;99%CI=1.06-2.18), no drains (aOR=2.06;99%CI=1.15-3.60), subcutaneous TE placement (aOR=5.71;99%CI=3.59-9.10), and partial pectoralis major muscle coverage (aOR=1.35;99%CI=1.02-1.79). Age<40 years (aOR=0.49;99%CI=0.32-0.74) and delayed PMBR (aOR=0.35;99%CI=0.19-0.60) reduced the risk of unplanned reoperation. Median time until reoperation was 97 days for unplanned and 213 days for planned reoperation. Deep wound infections were most often registered as indication for unplanned reoperation (34.4 percent). CONCLUSION: This study identified several risk factors for unplanned reoperation which may be used to reduce complications in expander-based PMBR.

Comparing costs of standard Breast-Conserving Surgery to Oncoplastic Breast-Conserving Surgery and Mastectomy with Immediate two-stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Conventional breast-conserving surgery (C-BCS) has equal oncological outcomes and superior cosmetic and patient-reported outcomes compared to mastectomy with immediate two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction (M-IBR). Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OP-BCS) is increasingly being used, as it often has better cosmetic results and it enables larger tumour resection. However, OP-BCS and M-IBR compared to C-BCS lengthens operative time and might lead to more complications and consequently to additional costs. Therefore, this study aimed to compare costs and complication rates of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR. METHODS: This single-centre, retrospective cohort study, calculated costs for all patients who had undergone breast cancer surgery between January 2014 and December 2016. Patient-, tumour- and surgery-related data of C-BCS, OP-BCS and M-IBR patients were retrieved by medical record review. Treatment costs were calculated using hospital financial data. Differences in costs and complications were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were included: 74 patients in the C-BCS, 78 in the OP-BCS and 68 in the M-IBR group. From most expensive to least expensive, differences in total costs were found between C-BCS vs. OP-BCS and C-BCS vs. M-IBR (p=<0.01 and p=0.04, respectively). Costs of OP-BCS and M-IBR were comparable. Complication rates were 5.5% for C-BCS, followed by 17% for OP-BCS, and 34% for M-IBR (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Considering total treatment costs, OP-BCS was financially non-inferior to M-IBR, whereas complication rates were higher following M-IBR. Therefore, when considering other benefits of OP-BCS, such as higher patient-reported outcomes and similar oncological outcomes, a shift from M-IBR to BCS using oncoplastic techniques seems justified.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patient-Reported Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients and Survivors.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (officially declared on the March 11, 2020), and the resulting measures, are impacting daily life and medical management of breast cancer patients and survivors. We evaluated to what extent these changes have affected quality of life, physical, and psychosocial well-being of patients previously or currently being treated for breast cancer. METHODS: This study was conducted within a prospective, multicenter cohort of breast cancer patients and survivors (Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion). Shortly after the implementation of COVID-19 measures, an extra survey was sent to 1595 participants, including the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core (C30) and breast cancer-specific (BR23) Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared with the most recent PROs collected within UMBRELLA pre-COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on PROs was assessed using mixed model analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: 1051 patients and survivors (65.9%) completed the survey; 31.1% (n = 327) reported a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A statistically significant deterioration in emotional functioning was observed (mean = 82.6 [SD = 18.7] to 77.9 [SD = 17.3]; P < .001), and 505 (48.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 45.0% to 51.1%) patients and survivors reported moderate to severe loneliness. Small improvements were observed in quality of life and physical, social, and role functioning. In the subgroup of 51 patients under active treatment, social functioning strongly deteriorated (77.3 [95% CI = 69.4 to 85.2] to 61.3 [95% CI = 52.6 to 70.1]; P = .002). CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast cancer patients and survivors were less likely to contact physicians and experienced a deterioration in their emotional functioning. Patients undergoing active treatment reported a substantial drop in social functioning. One in 2 reported loneliness that was moderate or severe. Online interventions supporting mental health and social interaction are needed during times of social distancing and lockdowns.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of arthroscopic assisted techniques for thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis.

Arthroscopic management of thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) osteoarthrosis (OA) is an approach that has unclear results. We performed a systematic review encompassing three electronic databases up to May 2016 for studies describing arthroscopic-assisted techniques for thumb CMC OA. Meta-analyses of visual analogue scores (VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) scores, grip strength and pinch strength before and after arthroscopy were performed for ten included non-randomized cohort studies comprising 294 patients. Based on Hedges' g measure, we found a large effect on VAS and DASH scores, a small effect on grip strength and no effect on pinch strength. On average, VAS improved by 4.1 cm, DASH by 22 points and grip strength by 2.8 kg. Complications were reported in 4% of patients. The use of arthroscopic-assisted techniques for thumb CMC OA is still limited; however, it may be a reasonable option for patients with thumb CMC OA who do not respond to non-operative treatment.

Risk factors for developing capsular contracture in women after breast implant surgery: A systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Capsular contracture is the most frequent complication in breast augmentation or reconstruction with breast implants. The exact mechanism for this complication is not completely understood. Yet, it is most likely to be a multifactorial condition. Several patient-, surgery-, and implant-specific risk factors have been related to cause capsular contracture. This review aims to provide a clear overview of all risk factors for capsular contracture. METHODS: A systematic literature review was performed focusing on patient-, surgery-, and/or implant-related factors related to capsular contracture in breast implants. PubMed, Embase, and Wiley/Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published from inception up to October 20, 2016. The included studies were assessed for the following main variables: study characteristics, patient characteristics, indication for surgery, type of surgery, implant characteristics, and other characteristics. RESULTS: Data on the risk factors for the development of capsular contracture were retrieved from 40 studies. A presumptive increased risk in the development of capsular contracture is shown for the following variables: longer duration of follow-up, breast reconstructive surgery in patients with a history of breast cancer, subglandular implant placement, postoperative hematoma, and a textured implant surface. There is little, weak, or no evidence for the association of other factors with capsular contracture. This review also shows a large heterogeneity between studies and within the definition of capsular contracture. CONCLUSION: This review provides an overview of the relationship between patient-, surgery-, and implant-specific risk factors in the development of capsular contracture.

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation for Lateral Unicondylar Distal Humeral Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Unicondylar distal humeral fractures are uncommon, partially intra-articular fractures (OTA/AO type B1) that are among the most complex fractures to treat1,2; however, most displaced distal humeral fractures, including lateral unicondylar distal humeral fractures2-5, can be effectively managed with open reduction and internal fixation. STEP 1 PREPARATION OF THE OPERATING ROOM AND THE PATIENT: Perform sterile preparation, have the patient brought into the operating room, induce anesthesia, and place the patient in the lateral decubitus or supine position before sterile draping. STEP 2 APPROACH TO THE FRACTURE: Make a lateral incision, expose the lateral distal part of the humerus, identify the ulnar nerve if necessary, visualize the fracture fragments, and debride the fracture site. STEP 3 REDUCTION OF THE FRACTURE: Reduce the fracture and fix it temporarily. STEP 4 PLATE FIXATION OF THE FRACTURE: Determine the plate length; position the plate posterolaterally, posteriorly, or laterally; insert screws; remove provisional Kirschner wires; and obtain intraoperative images. STEP 5 FINAL RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGING: Make anteroposterior and lateral radiographic images to confirm reduction and adequate anatomic alignment of the elbow and the position of the hardware. STEP 6 CLOSURE OF THE WOUND: Deflate the tourniquet, irrigate the wound, and apply postoperative dressings. RESULTS: The detailed outcome for a cohort of 24 patients who underwent this procedure has been reported elsewhere6.