The Impact of Psychiatric Diagnoses on Patient-reported Satisfaction and Quality of Life in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of psychiatric diagnoses among a sample of breast reconstruction patients and measure the association between these diagnoses and reconstruction-related, patient-reported outcomes. BACKGROUND: The impact of psychiatric disorders in conjunction with breast cancer diagnosis, treatment, and reconstruction have the potential to cause significant patient distress but remains not well understood. METHODS: A retrospective review of postmastectomy breast reconstruction patients from 2007 to 2018 at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center was conducted. Patient demographics, comorbidities, cancer characteristics, psychiatric diagnoses, and BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module scores (measuring satisfaction with breast, well-being of the chest, psychosocial, and sexual well-being) at postoperative years 1 to 3 were examined. Mixed-effects models and cross-sectional linear regressions were conducted to measure the effect of psychiatric diagnostic class type and number on scores. RESULTS: Of 7414 total patients, 50.1% had at least 1 psychiatric diagnosis. Patients with any psychiatric diagnoses before reconstruction had significantly lower BREAST-Q scores for all domains at all time points. Anxiety (50%) and depression (27.6%) disorders were the most prevalent and had the greatest impact on BREAST-Q scores. Patients with a greater number of psychiatric diagnostic classes had significantly worse patient-reported outcomes compared with patients with no psychiatric diagnosis. Psychosocial (ß: -7.29; 95% confidence interval: -8.67, -5.91), and sexual well-being (ß: -7.99; 95% confidence interval: -9.57, -6.40) were most sensitive to the impact of psychiatric diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health status is associated with psychosocial and sexual well-being after breast reconstruction surgery as measured with the BREAST-Q. Future research will need to determine what interventions (eg, screening, early referral) can help improve outcomes for breast cancer patients with psychiatric disorders undergoing breast reconstruction.

Outcomes and Perioperative Risk Factors after Oncologic Free-Flap Scalp Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the risk factors associated with complications after free flap scalp reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to identify patient, scalp defect, and flap characteristics associated with increased risk of surgical complications. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of free-flap scalp reconstruction in oncologic patients at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center from 2002 to 2017. Data collection included patient, defect, flap, and complication characteristics. Complications were classified into major, defined as complications requiring surgical intervention, and minor, defined as complications requiring conservative treatment. Risk factors and outcome variables were compared using chi-square with Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: A total of 63 free flaps to the scalp in 58 patients were performed; average follow-up was 3.5 years. Most flaps were muscle-only or musculocutaneous. One-third of patients with free flaps experienced complications (n = 21, 15 major and 6 minor). Examining risk factors for complications, patients with cardiovascular disease were nearly three times more likely to have suffered a major complication than patients without cardiovascular disease (36.7 vs. 12.1%, p = 0.04). This was the only significant risk factor noted. Perioperative radiotherapy, prior scalp surgery, flap type, and recipient vessel selection were found to be nonsignificant risk factors. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular disease may be a significant marker of risk for major complications in patients undergoing free-flap reconstruction of the scalp. This information should be used to help guide perioperative counseling and decision making in this challenging patient population.

Matched Preliminary Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes following Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) and implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) involve unavoidable confounders, which are often adjusted for in post hoc regression analyses. This study compared patient-reported outcomes between ABR patients and IBR patients by using propensity score matching to control for confounding variables upfront. METHODS: Propensity score matching analysis (2:1 nearest-neighbor matching with replacement) was performed for patients who underwent ABR or IBR without radiotherapy. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, history of psychiatric diagnosis, race-ethnicity, smoking status, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were BREAST-Q questionnaire scores for breast satisfaction and well-being. RESULTS: Of the 2334 patients identified, 427 were included in the final analysis: 159 who underwent ABR and 268 who underwent IBR. The ABR group matched the IBR group in the selected characteristics. ABR patients did not differ significantly from IBR patients in breast satisfaction or well-being at either 1 or 2 years after reconstructive surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary analysis of immediate breast reconstruction patients not requiring radiation therapy with similar propensities for ABR or IBR suggests comparable levels of breast satisfaction and well-being within 2 years after reconstructive surgery. Further research is needed with larger sample sizes, statistical power, and follow-up to better understand patient reported outcomes in this population, as the current findings differ from studies where patients were not matched on baseline characteristics.

Perioperative Inpatient Opioid Consumption Following Autologous Free-Flap Breast Reconstruction Patients: An Examination of Risk and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The response to the unprecedented opioid crisis in the US has increased focus on multimodal pain regimens and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways to reduce opioid use. This study aimed to define patient and system-level factors related to perioperative consumption of opioids in autologous free-flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study to identify patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction between 2010 and 2016. A multivariate linear regression model was developed to assess patient and system-level factors influencing opioid consumption. Opioid consumption was then dichotomized as total postoperative opioid consumption above (high) and below (low) the 50th percentile to afford more in-depth interpretation of the regression analysis. Secondary outcome analyses examined postoperative complications and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using the BREAST-Q. RESULTS: Overall, 601 patients were included in the analysis. Unilateral reconstruction, lower body mass index, older age, and administration of ketorolac and liposomal bupivacaine were associated with lower postoperative opioid consumption. In contrast, history of psychiatric diagnoses was associated with higher postoperative opioid consumption. There was no difference in the rates of postoperative complications when comparing the groups, although patients who had lower postoperative opioid consumption had higher BREAST-Q physical well-being scores. CONCLUSION: System-level components of ERAS pathways may reduce opioid use following autologous breast reconstruction, but surgical and patient factors may increase opioid requirements in certain patients. ERAS programs including liposomal bupivacaine and ketorolac should be established on a system level in conjunction with continued focus on individualized care, particularly for patients at risk for high opioid consumption.

Breast Implant-associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Incidence: Determining an Accurate Risk.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to estimate the incidence and incidence rate of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) at a high-volume single institution, which enables vigorous long-term follow-up and implant tracking for more accurate estimates. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The reported incidence of BIA-ALCL is highly variable, ranging from 1 in 355 to 1 in 30,000 patients, demonstrating a need for more accurate estimates. METHODS: All patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction from 1991 to 2017 were retrospectively identified. The incidence and incidence rate of BIA-ALCL were estimated per patient and per implant. A time-to-event analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator and life table. RESULTS: During the 26-year study period, 9373 patients underwent reconstruction with 16,065 implants, of which 9589 (59.7%) were textured. Eleven patients were diagnosed with BIA-ALCL, all of whom had a history of textured implants. The overall incidence of BIA-ALCL was 1.79 per 1000 patients (1 in 559) with textured implants and 1.15 per 1000 textured implants (1 in 871), with a median time to diagnosis of 10.3 years (range, 6.4-15.5 yrs). Time-to-event analysis demonstrated a BIA-ALCL cumulative incidence of 0 at up to 6 years, increasing to 4.4 per 1000 patients at 10 to 12 years and 9.4 per 1000 patients at 14 to 16 years, although a sensitivity analysis showed loss to follow-up may have skewed these estimates. CONCLUSIONS: BIA-ALCL incidence and incidence rates may be higher than previous epidemiological estimates, with incidence increasing over time, particularly in patients exposed to textured implants for longer than 10 years.

Long-term Patient-reported Outcomes Following Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: An 8-year Examination of 3268 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To better understand the long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in satisfaction and health-related quality of life (QOL) following post-mastectomy reconstruction (PMR) using the BREAST-Q, comparing PROs from patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) or autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple studies have demonstrated growth in mastectomy rates and concurrent increase in PMR utilization. However, most studies examining PMR PROs focus on short postoperative time periods-mainly within 2 years. METHODS: BREAST-Q scores from IBR or ABR patients at a tertiary center were prospectively collected from 2009 to 2017. Mean scores and standard deviations (SDs) were calculated for satisfaction with breast, satisfaction with outcome, psychosocial well-being, physical well-being of the chest, and sexual well-being. Satisfaction with breasts and physical well-being of the chest were compared using regression models at postoperative years 1, 3, 5, and 7. RESULTS: Overall, 3268 patients were included, with 336 undergoing ABR and 2932 undergoing IBR. Regression analysis demonstrated that ABR patients had greater postoperative satisfaction with breast scores at all timepoints compared with IBR patients. Postoperative radiation and mental illness adversely impacted satisfaction with breast scores. Furthermore, mental illness impacted physical wellbeing of the chest at all timepoints. IBR patients had satisfaction scores that remained stable over the study period. CONCLUSION: This study presents the largest prospective examination of PROs in PMR to date. Patients who opted for ABR had significantly higher satisfaction with their breast and QOL at each assessed time point, but IBR patients had stable long-term satisfaction and QOL postoperatively.

Extracellular Matrices (ECM) for Tissue Repair.

Persistence of skin wounds due to underlying disease, bacterial contamination, and/or repeated trauma, causes a chronic condition where a functional extracellular matrix (ECM) cannot be established and the normal wound-healing cascade is unable to progress. These open chronic wounds leave the body susceptible to infection and present a major healthcare problem. To this end, a broad range of biologic ECM scaffolds have been developed that can provide other therapeutic options aside from traditional wound care approaches. These tissue engineered ECM scaffolds aim to facilitate the restoration of functional skin-like tissue by altering the chronic wound environment and facilitating cellular attachment, proliferation, and differentiation. This discussion will center on reviewing current ECM scaffolds and highlighting their properties and mechanism of action with respect to the clinical application in chronic, non-healing wounds.

Osseous Maxillary Reconstruction with Immediate Dental Implant Placement: An Optimized Workflow for the Oncologic Patient.

INTRODUCTION: Maxillary reconstruction is a complex undertaking characterized by a 3-dimensional surgical site with deficiencies in multiple tissue types. Prior to virtual surgical planning(VSP), bony reconstruction was inaccurate and inefficient, thus reconstructions defaulted to soft tissue flaps or obturators. The current study describes an efficient and accurate approach to bony maxillary reconstruction with immediate dental implant placement(IDIP). METHODS: A reconstructive workflow was developed for osseous reconstruction to improve functional and aesthetic outcomes. Critical aspects include VSP, 3-D printed plates and IDIP. Review of a prospectively maintained database identified patients who underwent osseous maxillary reconstruction with a fibula flap and immediate dental implants from 2017-2022, with a focus on oncologic characteristics and reconstructive outcomes. RESULTS: During the study, 20 patients underwent maxillary reconstruction with VSP and IDIP. One dental implant out of 55 failed to osseointegrate and no flaps were lost. Three patients suffered partial loss of the fibula skin island; one required palatal closure with a radial forearm flap, and two were managed with outpatient debridement. Fifteen patients achieved either an interim or final retained dental prosthesis. All prostheses achieved acceptable aesthetic results without the instability associated with non-bone borne devices(e.g.dentures/obturators). No patients experienced delays in oncologic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: VSP technology has enabled surgeons to replace like with like to achieve better outcomes with acceptable morbidity for maxillary defects. IDIP provides all patients an opportunity for a fixed prosthesis even though not all complete the process. This maxillary reconstruction workflow can be safely accomplished in oncologic patients with promising and effective early results.

Quality of Life in Breast Reconstruction Patients after Irradiation to Tissue Expander: A Propensity-Matched Preliminary Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Tissue expanders (TEs) are routinely placed as a first step in breast reconstruction for women who require postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT). The final reconstruction can then be performed with implants or conversion to autologous tissues. The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and surgical complications in autologous (ABR) versus implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) patients following TE-PMRT. METHODS: The authors performed a propensity score preliminary analysis (1:1 matching, no replacement) in patients undergoing ABR or IBR following TE-PMRT. Matched covariates included age, race/ethnicity, smoking status, body mass index, history of psychiatric diagnosis, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest included complications and BREAST-Q scores for Satisfaction with Breasts, Physical Well-Being of the Chest, Sexual Well-Being, and Psychosocial Well-Being domains. RESULTS: Of 341 patients with TE-PMRT, a total of 106 patients were included in the matched analysis: 53 ABR patients and 53 IBR patients. ABR and IBR did not differ significantly in matched baseline, cancer, and surgical characteristics. ABR patients had higher scores for Satisfaction with Breasts (greater than the four-point minimal clinically important difference) at all postreconstruction time points compared with IBR patients ( P < 0.05). There were no significant postoperative differences in other BREAST-Q domains. The incidence of complications after definitive reconstruction did not differ significantly among cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In this matched preliminary analysis, patients who underwent ABR following irradiation to a TE demonstrated superior satisfaction with breast scores compared with IBR patients. Higher powered matched studies are needed to improve shared decision-making for patients who require mastectomy and PMRT as part of their treatment. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Paravertebral Blocks in Tissue Expander Breast Reconstruction: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Opioid Consumption and Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The paravertebral block (PVB) is an adjunctive perioperative pain control method for patients undergoing breast reconstruction that may improve perioperative pain control and reduce narcotic use. This study determined the efficacy of preoperative PVBs for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing tissue expander breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients who underwent tissue expander breast reconstruction from December of 2017 to September of 2019. Two patients with PVBs were matched using propensity scoring to one no-block patient. Perioperative analgesic use, pain severity scores on days 2 to 10 after discharge, and BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being scores before surgery and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The propensity-matched cohort consisted of 471 patients (314 PVB and 157 no block). The PVB group used significantly fewer morphine milligram equivalents than the no-block group (53.7 versus 69.8; P < 0.001). Average daily postoperative pain severity scores were comparable, with a maximum difference of 0.3 points on a 0-point to 4-point scale. BREAST-Q Physical Well-Being scores were significantly higher for the PVB group than the no-block group at 6 weeks after surgery (60.6 versus 51.0; P = 0.015) but did not differ significantly at 2 weeks or 3 months after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: PVBs may help reduce perioperative opioid requirements but did not reduce pain scores after discharge when used as part of an expander-based reconstruction perioperative pain management protocol. Continued research should examine additional or alternative regional block procedures as well as financial cost and potential long-term impact of PVBs. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Mini-plate versus reconstruction bar fixation for oncologic mandibular reconstruction with free fibula flaps: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction There is currently no consensus as to the comparative complication profiles of mini-plate (MP) and reconstruction bar (RB) osseous fixation in fibula flap mandibular reconstruction. The aim of this study is to compare complication rates associated with the use of MP versus RB fixation for vascularized fibula free flap (FFF) reconstruction of oncologic mandibular defects in an effort to better guide hardware utilization and pre-operative virtual surgical planning methods. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were queried to identify studies related to FFF-based mandibular reconstruction with either MP or RB fixation. Primary endpoints of interest were plate complications, wound infection, mal- or non-union, and total flap loss. Complication rates were calculated as weighted proportions and compared via Fisher's exact testing. Results Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria, which examined 1,513 patients. Only three studies directly compared MP fixation with RB fixation. MP fixation was used in 828 (54.7%) cases and RB fixation in 685 (45.3%) cases. MP fixation demonstrated greater rates of plate-related complications (32.5% versus 18.8%, p < 0.01, respectively), fistula formation (15.8% versus 4.7%, p = 0.04), total flap loss (9.4% versus 4.7%, p = 0.02), partial flap loss (20.6% versus 6.1%, p < 0.01), and re-operation for vascular compromise (13.3% versus 4.0%, p < 0.01). Rates of infection, mal-union/non-union, and wound dehiscence were similar across both groups. Conclusion Our results suggest that MP use may be associated with higher rates of plate-related complications. Though limited by outcome reporting heterogeneity, this review can serve as a template for future investigations evaluating the safety profiles of MP and RB fixation in head and neck surgery.

Prepectoral and Subpectoral Tissue Expander-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity-Matched Analysis of 90-Day Clinical and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Prepectoral placement of tissue expanders for two-stage implant-based breast reconstruction potentially minimizes chest wall morbidity and postoperative pain. The authors explored 90-day clinical and health-related quality-of-life outcomes for prepectoral versus subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction. METHODS: The authors conducted a propensity score-matching analysis (nearest neighbor, 1:1 matching without replacement) of patients who underwent immediate prepectoral or subpectoral tissue expander breast reconstruction between December of 2017 and January of 2019. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race/ethnicity, smoking status, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, nipple-sparing mastectomy, and laterality of reconstruction. Outcomes of interest were perioperative analgesia use, 90-day postoperative patient-reported pain, complication rates, and BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores. RESULTS: Of the initial cohort of 921 patients, 238 were propensity-matched and included in the final analysis. The matched cohort had no differences in baseline characteristics. Postoperative ketorolac (p = 0.048) use was higher in the subpectoral group; there were no other significant differences in intraoperative and postoperative analgesia use. Prepectoral patients had lower pain on postoperative days 1 to 2 but no differences on days 3 to 10. BREAST-Q physical well-being of the chest scores did not differ. Prepectoral patients had higher rates of seroma than subpectoral patients (p < 0.001). Rates of tissue expander loss did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: This matched analysis of 90-day complications found lower early postoperative pain in prepectoral tissue expander patients but no longer-term patient-reported differences. Although prepectoral reconstruction patients experienced a higher rate of seroma, this did not translate to a difference in tissue expander loss. Long-term analysis of clinical and patient-reported outcomes is needed to understand the full profile of the prepectoral technique. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Association of Radiation Timing with Long-Term Satisfaction and Health-Related Quality of Life in Prosthetic Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy is increasingly used after breast cancer surgery, which may impact patients' postoperative quality of life. This study assessed differences in long-term patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life after radiation therapy administered at different stages of implant-based breast reconstruction or with no radiation after surgery. METHODS: In this observational study, long-term outcomes were evaluated for four cohorts of women who completed breast reconstruction and received (1) no radiation, (2) radiation before tissue expander placement, (3) radiation after tissue expander placement, or (4) radiation after permanent implant between 2010 and 2017 at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Satisfaction and health-related quality of life were assessed using the prospectively collected Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest BREAST-Q subscales. Score distributions were examined by radiation exposure status for 3 years after surgery using nonparametric analyses and regression models. RESULTS: Of 2932 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 25.8 percent received radiation during breast cancer treatment, including before tissue expander placement ( n = 239; 8.2 percent), after tissue expander placement ( n = 290; 9.9 percent), and after implant placement ( n = 228; 7.8 percent). Radiotherapy patients had average scores 7 to 9 points lower at all postoperative time points for Satisfaction with Breasts and Physical Well-Being of Chest subscales ( p < 0.001). Although patient-reported outcomes did not differ by radiation timing, there were higher rates of severe capsular contracture with postimplant radiotherapy ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation therapy significantly affected patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life following implant breast reconstruction through 3 years postoperatively. Patient perception of outcome was unaffected by radiotherapy timing; however, capsular contracture was higher after postimplant radiotherapy, suggesting there may be an advantage to performing radiotherapy before placement of the final reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of Satisfaction and Quality of Life.

BACKGROUND: Although it is intuitive that nipple-sparing mastectomy in selected patients would result in excellent cosmetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction, studies of clinical outcomes and health-related quality of life are limited and show mixed results. This study aimed to use a propensity score-matching analysis to compare satisfaction and health-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients who underwent implant-based reconstruction following bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy or skin-sparing mastectomy. METHODS: A propensity score-matching analysis (1:1 matching, no replacement) was performed comparing patients undergoing nipple-sparing or skin-sparing mastectomy with immediate bilateral implant-based breast reconstruction. Patients with a history of any radiation therapy were excluded. Matched covariates included age, body mass index, race, smoking history, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, bra size, and history of psychiatric diagnosis. Outcomes of interest included BREAST-Q scores and complications. RESULTS: The authors examined 1371 patients for matching and included 460 patients (nipple-sparing mastectomy, n = 230; skin-sparing mastectomy, n = 230) in the final analyses. The authors found no significant differences in baseline, cancer, and surgical characteristics between matched nipple-sparing and skin-sparing mastectomy patients, who also had similar profiles for surgical complications. Interestingly, the authors found that postoperative Satisfaction with Breasts scores and all other health-related quality-of-life domains were stable over a 3-year period and did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with skin-sparing mastectomy, bilateral nipple-sparing mastectomy did not improve patient-reported or clinical outcomes when combined with immediate implant-based reconstruction. The impact that nipple-sparing mastectomy may have on breast aesthetics and the ability of the BREAST-Q to gauge an aesthetic result following nipple-sparing mastectomy warrant further investigation. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

BIA-ALCL and Textured Breast Implants: A Systematic Review of Evidence Supporting Surgical Risk Management Strategies.

BACKGROUND: Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a significant public health concern for women with breast implants. The increase in incidence rates underscores the need for improved methods for risk reduction and risk management. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to assess surgical risk reduction techniques and analyze communication/informed consent practices in patients with textured implants. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in PubMed (legacy), Embase (Embase.com), and Scopus with four search strategies including key terms centered around breast reconstruction and BIA-ALCL. RESULTS: A total of 571 articles were identified, of which 276 were included in the final review after duplicates were removed. After review, no articles were determined to fit the inclusion criteria of demonstrating data-driven evidence of BIA-ALCL risk reduction through surgical measures, demonstrating a significant lack of data on risk reduction for BIA-ALCL. CONCLUSIONS: Risk management for BIA-ALCL is an evolving area requiring additional investigation. Although removal of textured devices in asymptomatic patients is not currently recommended by the Food and Drug Administration, variability in estimates of risk has led many patients to electively replace these implants in an effort to decrease their risk of developing BIA-ALCL. To date, however, there is no evidence supporting the concept that replacing textured implants with smooth implants reduces risk for this disease. This information should be used to aid in the informed consent process for patients presenting to discuss management of textured breast implants.

Textured and Smooth Implant Use Reported in the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons Database: Epidemiologic Implications for BIA-ALCL.

Breast-implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is associated with prolonged exposure to textured implants. Current studies describing textured implant use are limited to single center/surgeon experiences. Using the Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons database, the study aims to characterize national trends in rates of smooth versus textured implant utilization. The hypothesis is that rates of textured implant use have decreased in the most recent time period. METHODS: Tracking Operations and Outcomes for Plastic Surgeons was queried from 2007 to 2019 for CPT codes involving breast implant use in augmentation and reconstruction. The rate of smooth and textured implant utilization was calculated for each year per procedure type. Generalized additive models with a smoothing function and Pearson chi-square tests were used to assess the trends. RESULTS: Textured implant use peaked in 2016, being utilized in 17.83% of cosmetic and 40.88% of reconstructive procedures. Textured implants were more commonly used for reconstructive compared with cosmetic cases for 2007-2009, 2011, and 2013-2019 (P < 0.02). Both cosmetic and reconstructive cases had nonlinear trends in textured implant use over the study period, with textured rates decreasing from 2017 to 2019 (P < 0.001). In 2019, textured implants were used in 2.15% of cosmetic and 7.58% of reconstructive cases. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first national study describing trends in textured versus smooth breast implant use in the United States. Textured implant utilization peaked in 2016. Based on a median time horizon of 10 years before development of BIA-ALCL, the peak number of cases can be anticipated in 2026 or thereafter.

Understanding Preoperative Breast Satisfaction among Patients Undergoing Mastectomy and Immediate Reconstruction: BREAST-Q Insights.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to present normative values for satisfaction with breasts among preoperative breast reconstruction patients as assessed using the BREAST-Q instrument and to delineate factors associated with preoperative breast satisfaction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data was performed examining women undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction at a tertiary care center who preoperatively completed the BREAST-Q from 2010 to 2017. Because breast satisfaction scores were nonnormally distributed, scores were categorized into quartiles for analysis. Patient- and treatment-level variables were tested in a multivariable ordinal logistic regression model as predictors of breast satisfaction. Preoperative satisfaction was also tested for association with choice of reconstructive modality. RESULTS: Among 1306 postmastectomy reconstruction patients included in the study, mean preoperative Satisfaction with Breasts score was 61.8 ± 21.5 and the median score was 58.0 (interquartile range, 48 to 70). Factors associated with significantly lower preoperative satisfaction included history of psychiatric diagnosis, preoperative radiotherapy, marital status (married), and higher body mass index. Factors associated with significantly higher scores were malignancy (localized tumor), medium bra size (B to C cup), and self-identification as black. Preoperative breast satisfaction was lower among patients who elected autologous reconstruction than among those with implant reconstruction (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative breast satisfaction is influenced by multiple factors. Understanding these factors may improve preoperative counseling and expectation management for patients who undergo postmastectomy breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Goal-directed fluid therapy in autologous breast reconstruction results in less fluid and more vasopressor administration without outcome compromise.

OBJECTIVE: Aggressive or restricted perioperative fluid management has been shown to increase complications in patients undergoing microsurgery. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) aims to administer fluid, vasoactive agents, and inotropes according to each patient's hemodynamic indices. This study assesses GDFT impact on perioperative outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) patients, as there remains a gap in management understanding. We hypothesize that GDFT will have lower fluid administration and equivocal outcomes compared to patients not on GDFT. METHODS: A single-center retrospective review was conducted on ABR patients from January 2010-April 2017. An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) using GDFT was implemented in April 2015. With GDFT, patients were administered intraoperative fluids and vasoactive agents according to hemodynamic indices. Patients prior to April 2015 were included in the pre-ERAS cohort. Primary outcomes included the amount and rate of fluid delivery, urine output (UOP), vasopressor administration, major (i.e., flap failure) and minor (i.e., seroma) complications, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Overall, 777 patients underwent ABR (ERAS: 312 and pre-ERAS: 465). ERAS patients received significantly less total fluid volume (ERAS median: 3750 mL [IQR: 3000-4500 mL]; pre-ERAS median: 5000 mL [IQR 4000-6400 mL]; and p<0.001), had lower UOP, were more likely to receive vasopressor agents (47% vs 35% and p<0.001), and had lower LOS (ERAS: 4 days [4-5]; pre-ERAS: 5 [4-6]; and p<0.001) as compared to pre-ERAS patients. Complications did not differ between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: GDFT, as part of ERAS, and the prudent use of vasopressors were found to be safe and did not increase morbidity in ABR patients. GDFT provides individualized perioperative care to the ABR patient.

Smooth versus Textured Implant Breast Reconstruction: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications.

BACKGROUND: The association between textured surface breast implants and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has led to an increase in surgical procedures to exchange textured devices to smooth surface implants. Because patient satisfaction is an integral part of breast reconstruction, the purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes between smooth and textured implant recipients. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older who underwent implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction with either smooth or textured devices from 2009 to 2017 and completed the BREAST-Q patient-reported outcome measure following reconstruction were included in this analysis. The primary outcomes of interest were mean and median BREAST-Q scores and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Overall, 1077 patients were included-785 who underwent breast reconstruction with smooth implants and 292 who underwent breast reconstruction with textured implants. No statistical differences were observed between the textured and smooth implant groups for any of the BREAST-Q domain scores at any of the early (3-month) to late (2-year) postoperative time points. Smooth implant recipients reported significantly more rippling (p = 0.003) than textured implant recipients. In contrast, textured implant recipients had a higher rate of cellulitis than smooth implant recipients (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that postoperative satisfaction with breasts or health-related quality of life following immediate postmastectomy implant-based breast reconstruction is likely independent of implant surface type. However, smooth breast implants may result in more rippling. The authors' findings represent an important aid in counseling patients who have questions about the risks and benefits of replacing their textured implants with smooth surface devices. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.