The Positive Patient Experience: A Comprehensive Analysis of Plastic Surgery Online Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Subjective online physician evaluation is an important component of patient decision-making. Understanding reviews may improve satisfaction and build positive online reputation. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze and compare the top predictive factors driving patient satisfaction across the most popular plastic surgery procedures. METHODS: Online reviews were analyzed from RealSelf, Yelp, and Google for the 5 highest-rated plastic surgeons in 6 US metropolitan areas. Blank, non-English, consultation, duplicate, and unrelated reviews were excluded. Data from free-text reviews included physician rating, patient-reported reasons for rating, procedure, and complications. Univariate analysis was performed to compare predictive factors of online ratings. RESULTS: In total, 11,078 reviews were included. RealSelf had the highest average rating (4.77), and Yelp had the lowest (4.66). Reviews in Miami, Philadelphia, New York City, and Chicago were mostly published on RealSelf, whereas Houston and Los Angeles mostly used Google and Yelp, respectively. Reconstructive procedures were rated significantly higher than cosmetic procedures (P = 0.035). Aesthetic appearance was the strongest predictor of rating across all procedures. Buccal fat removal (98.8%) and abdominoplasty (98.1%) had the highest satisfaction, and Brazilian butt lift had the lowest (88.2%) (P < 0.001). Additional significant contributors included staff interaction, bedside manner, health outcomes, complications, and postoperative care (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although aesthetic outcome is an important predictor of satisfaction, other aspects of care, such as bedside manner and staff interaction, provide an important foundation of support. Excellent patient-surgeon communication and postoperative care may mitigate patient dissatisfaction and elicit high-satisfaction online patient reviews.

Examining the Effects of Postmastectomy Radiation Therapy in Prepectoral Versus Subpectoral Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) is known to increase the risk of multiple adverse outcomes after breast reconstruction. In the context of delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction, PMRT is typically conducted after placement of subpectoral (SP) tissue expanders. With the re-emergence of prepectoral (PP) reconstruction, there are little data assessing the outcomes of PP reconstruction in breasts receiving PMRT. We compared postoperative outcomes of PMRT patients undergoing delayed-immediate, autologous breast reconstruction with placement of tissue expanders in either the PP or SP plane. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on all consecutive patients who underwent delayed-immediate autologous breast reconstruction and received PMRT at either the Stanford University or the Johns Hopkins University Hospitals between January 2009 and December 2018. Demographics, comorbidities, perioperative information, and oncologic data were collected for all patients. Complications were collected and analyzed after stage 1 surgery, between 30 days of stage 1 and up to stage 2 surgery, and after stage 2 surgery. Multivariable regressions were used to determine predictors of 1 or more complications. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients (73 breasts) were included. Prepectoral reconstruction comprised of 52.2% of the cohort, and the remaining 47.8% were SP reconstructions. Demographics and comorbidities were similar between groups, except for premastectomy radiation, which was more prevalent in the PP cohort (P = 0.010). Complications were similar between cohorts after stage 1 surgery (P = 0.420), between stages 1 and 2 (P = 0.100), and after stage 2 (P = 0.570). There were higher rates of skin necrosis in the SP cohort between stages 1 and 2 (PP: 2.6%, SP: 20%, P = 0.004). Multivariable analysis revealed body mass index to be the only predictor of complication (P = 0.041). The mean number of revisionary surgeries was higher in the SP cohort (PP: 0.8 vs SP: 1.9, P = 0.002). The mean follow-up was 385.5 days and similar between groups (P = 0.870). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of overall complication were similar between PP and SP expander placement. However, in SP reconstructions, skin necrosis was significantly higher between stages 1 and 2. The patients in the SP cohort also underwent a greater number of revisionary surgeries, although overall rates of pursuing any revisionary surgery were similar between groups.

Comparing Outcomes of Flap-Based Salvage Reconstructions in the Radiated Breast.

INTRODUCTION: Chest wall irradiation significantly decreases the strength and quality of breast tissue supporting prostheses, increasing the risk of skin breakdown and implant or tissue expander extrusion. Autologous tissue, including the latissimus dorsi (LD) or abdominal-based flaps, including the muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous or deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps, may be used to salvage reconstructions. However, data comparing outcomes of the two flap options remains limited. We compare postoperative outcomes from both flap types after autologous salvage reconstruction in irradiated breasts. METHODS: Charts were retrospectively reviewed from patients who underwent either chest wall radiation or postmastectomy radiation therapy followed by salvage autologous reconstruction with either a LD and an implant or an abdominal-based flap (muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous or deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps). Patients with a history of tissue expander or implant failure requiring autologous salvage as part of 2-staged or delayed-immediate breast reconstruction that were operated on between January 2005 and November 2015 were included. Basic demographics, comorbidities, and recipient site complications (infection, wound dehiscence, seroma, hematoma, fat necrosis, and flap failure) were collected. RESULTS: A total of 72 patients met the inclusion criteria which included 72 flaps; 35 LD and 37 abdominally based flaps. Demographics and comorbidities did not vary significantly between patient groups. Mean follow-up was 767.6 weeks, and all reconstructions were unilateral. Nineteen (26.4%) patients had at least one complication, most commonly minor infections (9.7%). Overall complication rates were not significantly different between flap groups (P = 0.083). Wound dehiscence was significantly higher in the abdominal group (P = 0.045), and fat necrosis also trended higher in this group (P = 0.085). Major infection trended higher in the latissimus group (P = 0.069). CONCLUSIONS: When comparing outcomes of salvage flap-based reconstruction in radiated breast tissue, overall complication rates were similar when comparing postoperative outcomes between the LD- and abdominal-based flaps. Wound dehiscence was significantly higher when salvage reconstruction used an abdominal flap. Understanding the complications after salvage procedures can help inform decision making and optimize patient care to improve outcomes after breast reconstruction in the radiated breast.