BACKGROUND: Although symptomatic neuroma formation has been described in other patient populations, these data have not been studied in patients undergoing resection of musculoskeletal tumors. This study aimed to characterize the incidence and risk factors of symptomatic neuroma formation following en bloc resection in this population. METHODS: The authors retrospectively reviewed adults undergoing en bloc resections for musculoskeletal tumors at a high-volume sarcoma center from 2014 to 2019. The authors included en bloc resections for an oncologic indication and excluded non-en bloc resections, primary amputations, and patients with insufficient follow-up. Data are provided as descriptive statistics, and multivariable regression modeling was performed. RESULTS: The authors included 231 patients undergoing 331 en bloc resections (female, 46%; mean age, 52 years). Nerve transection was documented in 87 resections (26%). There were 81 symptomatic neuromas (25%) meeting criteria of Tinel sign or pain on examination and neuropathy in the distribution of suspected nerve injury. Factors associated with symptomatic neuroma formation included age 18 to 39 [adjusted OR (aOR), 3.6; 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.4; P < 0.01] and 40 to 64 (aOR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.6; P = 0.04), multiple resections (aOR, 3.2; 95% CI, 1.7 to 5.9; P < 0.001), preoperative neuromodulator requirement (aOR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 6.0; P = 0.01), and resection of fascia or muscle (aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.0; P = 0.045). CONCLUSION: The authors' results highlight the importance of adequate preoperative optimization of pain control and intraoperative prophylaxis for neuroma prevention following en bloc resection of tumors, particularly for younger patients with a recurrent tumor burden. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
Neuroma , Soft Tissue Neoplasms , Spinal Neoplasms , Adult , Humans , Female , Middle Aged , Adolescent , Young Adult , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Spinal Neoplasms/surgery , Neoplasm Recurrence, Local/pathology , Soft Tissue Neoplasms/epidemiology , Soft Tissue Neoplasms/etiology , Soft Tissue Neoplasms/surgery , Neuroma/epidemiology , Neuroma/etiology , Neuroma/surgery , Pain
BACKGROUND: Autologous fat grafting is a widely adopted approach to optimize outcomes in breast reconstruction and augmentation. Although fat necrosis is a well-known consequence of autologous fat grafting, it remains inconsistently defined in the literature. In late 2014, the Food and Drug Administration released a draft guidance to restrict future autologous fat grafting-a statement that was permissively modified in late 2017. In the context of evolving guidelines and autologous fat grafting outcome data, the language and descriptions of fat necrosis are inconsistent in the literature. METHODS: Five databases were queried for studies reporting fat necrosis following autologous fat grafting for breast reconstruction or augmentation from inception to August 11, 2022. Studies were temporally stratified according to released FDA guidelines: pre-2015, 2015-2017, and 2018-2022. RESULTS: Sixty-one articles met inclusion criteria. Prior to 2015, 6 of 21 studies (28.6%) offered clear definitions of fat necrosis. In contrast, the 2015-2017 period demonstrated an absence of clear fat necrosis definitions (0/13 studies, p = 0.03). Though the 2018-2022 period exhibited a rise in annual publications compared with the pre-2015 period (5.4 vs. 1.9, respectively, p = 0.04), this was not matched by a rise in clear fat necrosis reporting (14.8% studies, p = 0.45). Across all periods, only 16.4% of articles offered clear definitions, which exhibited wide heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing popularity of autologous fat grafting, fat necrosis remains inconsistently defined and described, especially in the context of changing FDA guidelines. This limits the reliable interpretation and application of the current literature reporting fat necrosis outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
