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.

Can we decrease the duration of basal thumb joint distraction for early osteoarthritis from 8 to 6 weeks? Study protocol for a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, to date, 52 patients with thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC1 OA) were treated with joint distraction. So far, most patients experienced improved physical function and less pain. After 2 years, only 1 patient proceeded to trapeziectomy. This study assesses if we can safely lower the distraction duration from 8 to 6 weeks for CMC1 joint distraction, maintaining the improvement in physical function and pain. METHODS: This is a monocenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial that includes patients younger than 65 years of age with ongoing symptoms of CMC1 OA and an established indication for surgery. All patients will be treated with CMC1 joint distraction. The primary outcome is to assess whether 6 weeks of joint distraction is not inferior to 8 weeks in terms of physical function at 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes will identify differences between groups at 1 year in pain intensity, patient satisfaction, hand health status, adverse event rates, treatment failure, differences in thumb strength and range of motion, and radiographic changes. DISCUSSION: If safe, the duration of basal thumb joint distraction can be reduced to 6 weeks, reducing patient burden. Because this is a relatively new treatment, this trial will provide greater knowledge of potential adverse events. This knowledge allows for more informed decision making for patients considering CMC1 distraction treatment. Future studies can directly compare joint distraction to other treatments of CMC1 joint arthritis like splinting and trapeziectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (CCMO), NL68225.100.18; registered on 9 August 2019. Medical Research Ethics Committees United (MEC-U), R19.003; registered on 9 August 2019. Netherlands Trial Register, NL8016 ; registered on 15 September 2019.

Joint Distraction for Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: 2-Year Follow-up Results of 20 Patients.

Background Joint distraction is a fairly new treatment for patients with symptomatic thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis (CMC1 OA). A previous pilot study of five patients showed that CMC1 joint distraction is technically feasible. The current study presents the results of CMC1 joint distraction in 20 patients with a 2-year follow-up period. Purposes The primary study aim was to assess if patients with CMC1 OA have better physical function and less pain 2 years after CMC1 joint distraction. Second, we assessed the number of patients who achieved a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures at each follow-up time point. Furthermore, this study sought differences on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the CMC1 joint before and after distraction. Adverse events were noted and reported. Methods Twenty patients (median age of 54 years) with symptomatic CMC1 OA and an established indication for a trapeziectomy were enrolled. An external distractor device was placed over the CMC1 joint and left in situ for 8 weeks. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ), visual analogue scale (VAS), and grip strength were recorded preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Results Two years after joint distraction, physical function and pain scores had improved significantly compared with baseline: DASH from 48 to 17, MHQ from 56 to 83, and VAS for pain from 50 to 18 mm. Fourteen of 19 patients (74%) reached an MCID in DASH and MHQ scores. One patient was not satisfied with treatment outcome and chose to proceed with a trapeziectomy 14 months after initial distraction therapy. Conclusions This study demonstrates that CMC1 joint distraction can postpone more invasive surgical interventions (e.g., trapeziectomy) for at least 2 years. Larger comparative studies are needed to assess the value of CMC1 joint distraction in the treatment of CMC1 OA. Level of Evidence This is a Level IV, prospective case series study.

Joint distraction for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a feasibility study with 1-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of joint distraction of the first carpometacarpal (CMC1) joint in patients with CMC1 osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: An external joint distractor was placed over the CMC1 joint by K-wire fixation in the trapezium and the metacarpal. The joint was distracted 3 mm during surgery. The device was then kept in place for 8 weeks. Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score, Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ), Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and grip strength were recorded preoperatively and at set postoperative intervals. RESULTS: Five female patients with an average age of 53 years (range = 41-61) were included. One year postoperatively, average DASH, MHQ, and VAS scores improved compared to preoperative values; DASH 53 to 27, MHQ 48 to 76, and VAS pain 48 to 14. There were no technical problems associated with the device. One patient had a local pin site infection treated successfully with oral antibiotics. CONCLUSIONS: This study concludes that joint distraction of the osteoarthritic CMC1 joint is technically feasible. In this small, prospective pilot study the majority of the results were favourable during short-term follow-up.

Retrospective Study of a Series of 20 Ivory Prostheses in the Treatment of Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis.

Background Many surgical treatment options for osteoarthritis (OA) of the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint exist. However, no procedure has been proven superior. Good results have been described for TMC joint replacement. Purpose To analyze the results of the Ivory prosthesis in the treatment of symptomatic TMC OA. Patients and Methods A retrospective single-center follow-up study was performed. Visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ), active range of motion, strength, and radiological outcomes were assessed and analyzed. Differences between the operated and nonoperated hand were analyzed using paired t-tests. Twenty patients were included with a mean follow-up duration of 37.0 months. Results Patients experienced minimal pain with a mean VAS pain score of 1.9. DASH and MHQ scores indicated mild to moderate impairments. Eighty-five percent of patients assessed the operation excellent or good. Significant differences were found in measurements of extension and palmar thumb abduction in favor of the contralateral hand. No significant differences in strength between both hands were found. Two patients had a dislocation of the prosthesis; one patient required open reduction and tightening of the joint capsule. The other dislocation was treated with trapeziectomy and interposition of a fascia lata allograft. One patient had a collapse of the trapezium requiring a revision procedure. Conclusion Ivory prosthesis TMC arthroplasty can achieve good results in patients with symptomatic isolated TMC OA. In this series, however, revision surgery was required in 3 of 20 cases.

Partial trapeziectomy and interposition of fascia lata allograft in the operative treatment of thumb base osteoarthritis.

AIM: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the results of fascia lata allograft interposition after partial trapeziectomy in patients with symptomatic first carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (22 thumbs) with Eaton-Glickel stage II or III first carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis were included. After a mean follow-up duration of 70.2 months, most patients experienced minimal pain. The operation was graded excellent or good by 15 patients (15 hands). Active range of motion and strength measurements were comparable to the contralateral hand, except for extension, which was slightly better in the contralateral hand. The mean radiologically measured difference pre- and postoperatively in distance between distal part of the trapezium and base of the metacarpal was 2.7 mm. Two patients had reoperations in the first year after the initial operation because of ongoing pain. CONCLUSION: Partial trapeziectomy with interposition of fascia lata allograft in patients with symptomatic first carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis can achieve reasonable results. It may be considered a reliable operative treatment option in patients with first carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis.

The clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of the vacuum-assisted closure technique in the management of acute and chronic wounds: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Vacuum-assisted closure therapy is a relatively new concept described in the literature that increases wound-healing capacity. The authors aimed to investigate the effect of vacuum-assisted closure therapy on wound healing, granulation tissue formation, bacterial clearance, pain, time involvement of the staff, and total costs in all types of wounds in comparison with modern wound dressings. METHODS: Sixty-five patients with a chronic or acute wound were randomized to initial treatment with vacuum-assisted closure or modern dressings. The authors' primary endpoint was a granulated wound or a wound ready for skin grafting or healing by secondary intention. RESULTS: The time to the primary endpoint with vacuum-assisted closure therapy was not significantly shorter, except for patients with cardiovascular disease and/or diabetics. Vacuum-assisted closure therapy did not result in significantly faster granulation or wound surface reduction or better bacterial clearance, but patient comfort was an important advantage. Time involvement and costs of nursing staff were significantly lower for the vacuum-assisted closure therapy, but overall costs were similar for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: With vacuum-assisted closure therapy, wound healing is at least as fast as with modern wound dressings. Especially cardiovascular and diabetic patients benefit from this therapy. The total costs of vacuum-assisted closure are comparable to those of modern wound dressings, but the advantage is its comfort for patients and nursing staff.