Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) vs. mastectomy with reconstruction: a comparison of outcomes in an underserved population.

Background: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) has demonstrated superior cosmetic outcomes to traditional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) while maintaining oncologic safety. While prior studies have compared OBCS to mastectomy, there is a scarcity of literature on the impact of social determinants of health on outcomes. Furthermore, although traditionally tumors larger than 5 cm and multifocal disease were treated with mastectomy, the literature has now shown OBCS to be safe in treating such disease. As a result, patients with large or multifocal tumors could be eligible for both mastectomy and OBCS, which prompts the need for comparison between the two. Thus, the aim of our study was to compare OBCS and mastectomy with reconstruction using BREAST-Q and oncologic outcome measures, as well as stratify these outcomes based on race, ethnicity, and body mass index (BMI). Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed for 57 patients treated with OBCS and 204 patients treated with mastectomy with reconstruction from 2015 to 2021. Variables including age, race, ethnicity, BMI, insurance status, surgery type, pathology, recurrence, and complications were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were recorded using BREAST-Q pre- and post-operatively. Results: Despite having a higher BMI (P<0.001), OBCS yielded higher "satisfaction with breast" and "satisfaction with outcome" than mastectomy (P=0.02 and P=0.02, respectively). When stratified by race, there were no statistical differences in the PROs between the two surgeries for Hispanic nor African American patients. OBCS had a significantly lower rate of infection and fewer additional surgeries than mastectomy (P=0.004 and P<0.001, respectively). There were no differences in positive margin rate or recurrence rate between the groups. Conclusions: In our study, OBCS yielded better PROs than mastectomy while maintaining oncologic safety and resulting in fewer surgeries and complications. These excellent outcomes in a majority non-Caucasian cohort support the utilization of OBCS for underserved, minority populations. Larger studies evaluating PROs in diverse and uninsured groups are needed to reinforce these conclusions.

Acute Kidney Injury Risk and Contrast Volume in Intact Versus Ruptured Endovascular Aneurysm Repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

OBJECTIVE: Renal impairment after repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm has been associated with post-operative mortality. Acute kidney injury (AKI) risk specifically related to contrast administration in endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact vs ruptured aneurysms has not been previously described. It was our objective to evaluate the risk of AKI and the association with contrast administration in EVAR for ruptured (rEVAR) and intact (iEVAR) aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). METHODS: Adult patients less than 90 years old undergoing EVAR in the VQI without prior abdominal aortic surgery or who were not actively on dialysis preoperatively were included. Patients immediately converted to an open repair were excluded. Patients were grouped by repair urgency, and patient and operative characteristics and outcomes compared. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcome of AKI. Survival was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Of 38,775 EVAR patients identified, 86.5% underwent elective surgery for an intact aneurysm, 8.4% had urgent surgery for a symptomatic, intact aneurysm, and 5.1% had emergent repair for a ruptured aneurysm. Significant risk factors for AKI included contrast volume, a preoperative eGFR <30 mL/min, procedure urgency, COPD, congestive heart failure (CHF), and total procedure time. The factor most associated with AKI was aneurysm rupture prior to repair (OR 8.6, CI 7.2-10.3, P <.01). The association of contrast volume with the outcome was the least strong with a 4% increase in risk per 25 mL of contrast (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07). With the development of AKI, postoperative survival was reduced regardless of indication. CONCLUSIONS: Of all factors assessed, aneurysm rupture was the most and contrast volume the least associated with AKI after EVAR. Further studies should evaluate methods of preventing post-EVAR AKI.

Postoperative pain and opioid use after breast reduction with or without preoperative nerve block.

BACKGROUND: Physician-prescribed opioids have been implicated as key contributing factors in the current opioid epidemic in the United States. Breast reduction mammoplasty is one of the most commonly performed procedures in plastic surgery and patients are often prescribed large amounts of postoperative opioids. Here we investigate the effects of erector spinae nerve blocks on postoperative pain, opioid consumption, and quality of life after breast reduction. METHODS: Following the institutional review board (IRB) approval, a prospective cohort study of some patients undergoing breast reduction mammoplasty at Montefiore Medical Center between June and September 2019 was undertaken. The patients were stratified into two cohorts for further analysis: those who received preoperative erector spinae nerve block and those who did not. Primary outcomes measures analyzed included Likert pain scores, patient-reported outcome measures, and opioid consumption for the first five postoperative days. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were enrolled in the analysis. Thirteen patients (28%) received nerve blocks, 34 (72%) did not. On average, the patients were prescribed 114.3 (±34.6) morphine equivalents postoperatively and they consumed 45% (±35.3) by the end of the first five days post-surgery. There were no significant differences between cohorts in morphine equivalents prescribed or consumed, postoperative pain scores, or patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: Following breast reduction mammoplasty, patients on average consumed < 50% of prescribed opioids, suggesting over-prescription of postoperative opioids for breast reduction recovery. Preoperative nerve block did not improve pain scores or decrease opioid consumption for the first five days after surgery.

Do larger reductions yield larger returns? patient-reported outcomes as a function of specimen weight in bilateral reduction mammoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing breast reduction mammoplasty for symptomatic macromastia have a significantly improved quality of life postoperatively. However, there are no data that examine the effect of reduction mammoplasty on quality of life as a function of the weight of tissue removed. Because the process by which insurance providers consider patients' candidacy for this breast reduction mammoplasty is most often based on the proposed weight of tissue to be removed, this gap in our understanding is particularly glaring. We therefore designed a prospective trial with the intent of investigating the correlation between breast reduction specimen weight and postoperative pain and quality of life. METHODS: After obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval, patients presenting for breast reduction mammoplasty at a single academic medical center between January 2016 and September 2019 were prospectively enrolled in the study. Study participants completed the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), and the BREAST-Q at set time points (preoperatively, 1 week/1 month/3 months/6 months postoperatively). Patients were divided into three cohorts based on breast reduction specimen weights: small (<500 g reduction), intermediate (500-1000 g reduction), and large (>1000 g reduction). The surveys were then analyzed while controlling for demographic factors and complications. RESULTS: A total of 85 women were enrolled in the study and completed pre- and postoperative surveys (small reduction n = 21 (25%), intermediate n = 45 (53%), and large n = 19 (22%)). Regardless of reduction specimen weight, patients reported decreased overall pain and increased satisfaction with their breasts, as well as improved psychosocial, sexual, and physical well-being at each postoperative visit. Preoperative SF-MPQ pain scores were significantly lower in the small specimen weight group compared with either the intermediate or the large group (p = 0.001). Postoperatively, both the intermediate and large groups reported significant improvement in pain at each time point. The small specimen weight group did not report significant pain improvement until 3 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing breast reduction mammoplasty experience decreased pain and improved quality of life regardless of reduction specimen weight. Improvement in these parameters manifests as early as 1 week postoperatively and maintained at 3 months postoperatively. These data suggest that many patients who are denied coverage for reduction mammoplasty on the basis of low projected reduction specimen weight would derive significant benefit from the procedure.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.