Autologous Skin Grafts, versus Tissue-engineered Skin Constructs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

For over 100 years, autologous skin grafts have remained the gold standard for the reconstruction of wounds but are limited in availability. Acellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (acellular TCs) and cellular tissue-engineered skin constructs (cellular TCs) may address these limitations. This systematic review and meta-analysis compare outcomes between them. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using PRISMA guidelines, querying MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane to assess graft incorporation, failure, and wound healing. Case reports/series, reviews, in vitro/in vivo work, non-English articles or articles without full text were excluded. Results: Sixty-six articles encompassing 4076 patients were included. No significant differences were found between graft failure rates (P = 0.07) and mean difference of percent reepithelialization (p = 0.92) when split-thickness skin grafts were applied alone versus co-grafted with acellular TCs. Similar mean Vancouver Scar Scale was found for these two groups (p = 0.09). Twenty-one studies used at least one cellular TC. Weighted averages from pooled results did not reveal statistically significant differences in mean reepithelialization or failure rates for epidermal cellular TCs compared with split-thickness skin grafts (p = 0.55). Conclusions: This systematic review is the first to illustrate comparable functional and wound healing outcomes between split-thickness skin grafts alone and those co-grafted with acellular TCs. The use of cellular TCs seems promising from preliminary findings. However, these results are limited in clinical applicability due to the heterogeneity of study data, and further level 1 evidence is required to determine the safety and efficacy of these constructs.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol Allows Safe Same-Day Discharge in Expander Based and Oncoplastic Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Data after enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) with same-day discharge in breast reconstruction is limited. This study evaluates early postoperative outcomes after same-day discharge in tissue-expander immediate breast reconstruction (TE-IBR) and oncoplastic breast reconstruction. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of TE-IBR patients from 2017 to 2022 and oncoplastic breast reconstruction patients from 2014 to 2022 was performed. Patients were divided by procedure and recovery pathway: group 1 (TE-IBR, overnight admission), group 2 (TE-IBR, ERAS), group 3 (oncoplastic, overnight admission), and group 4 (oncoplastic, ERAS). Groups 1 and 2 were subdivided by implant location: groups 1a (prepectoral) and 1b (subpectoral), and groups 2a (prepectoral) and 2b (subpectoral). Demographics, comorbidities, complications, and reoperations were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 160 TE-IBR patients (group 1, 91; group 2, 69) and 60 oncoplastic breast reconstruction patients (group 3, 8; group 4, 52) were included. Of the 160 TE-IBR patients, 73 underwent prepectoral reconstruction (group 1a, 25; group 2a, 48), and 87 underwent subpectoral reconstruction (group 1b, 66; group 2b, 21). There were no differences in demographics and comorbidities between groups 1 and 2. Group 3 had a higher average body mass index than group 4 (37.6 vs 32.2, P = 0.022). There was no significant difference between groups 1a and 2a or between groups 1b and 2b in rates of for rates of infection, hematoma, skin necrosis, wound dehiscence, fat necrosis, implant loss, or reoperations. Group 3 and group 4 showed no significant difference in any complications or in reoperations. Notably, no patients in same-day discharge groups required unplanned hospital admission. CONCLUSIONS: Many surgical subspecialities have successfully adopted ERAS protocols into their patient care and have shown both its safety and feasibility. Our research shows that same-day discharge in both TE-IBR and oncoplastic breast reconstruction does not increase risk for major complications or reoperations.

Reconstructive Trends After Tissue-Expander Loss in Breast Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Tissue-expander breast reconstruction (TEBR) is a common method of reconstruction after mastectomy but may result in complications that may necessitate removal. Although complications in TEBR have been well studied, there is a paucity of data regarding outcomes after tissue-expander loss. In this study, we examine the eventual reconstructive pathways and associated factors of patients who required tissue-expander removal after infection. METHODS: This retrospective study examines patients undergoing breast reconstruction at a single institution. Patients included underwent mastectomy, immediate TEBR, and subsequent tissue-expander loss. Patients who underwent autologous reconstruction after mastectomy or had successful TEBR were excluded. Patients were followed for an average of 7 years, with a minimum of 2 years and a maximum of 13 years. RESULTS: A total of 674 TEBR patients were initially screened, of which 60 patients (8.9%) required tissue-expander removal because of infection or skin necrosis. Thirty-one of these patients (group 1) did not complete reconstruction after initial tissue-expander loss, whereas the remaining 29 patients (group 2) underwent either TEBR or autologous reconstruction after tissue-expander loss. Group 1 had a significantly higher mean body mass index than group 2 (32.61 ± 8.88 vs 28.69 ± 5.84; P = 0.049) and also lived further away from our institution than group 2 (P = 0.052), which trended toward significance. There were otherwise no significant differences in demographics between the 2 groups.Among the 29 patients in group 2, 18 patients underwent a second TEBR (group 2a), and 11 patients underwent autologous reconstruction (group 2b). Patients in group 2b had a significantly greater mean number of complication related admissions (1.11 ± 0.323 vs 1.55 ± 0.688; P = 0.029) and also had higher occurrence of postmastectomy radiation therapy (16.7% vs 45.5%; P = 0.092), although this was not significant. There were otherwise no differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate the trends in breast reconstruction decision making after initial tissue-expander loss. This study elucidates the factors associated with patients who undergo different reconstructive options. Further work is needed to delineate the specific reasons between the decision to pursue different reconstructive pathways among a larger cohort of patients.

Clinical Outcomes After Hematoma Development: A Study of 627 Tissue Expander Breast Reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Hematomas after tissue expander immediate breast reconstruction (TE-IBR) pose a significant challenge during the recovery period. In this study, we aim to evaluate whether hematoma formation leads to subsequent complications and how management can impact final reconstructive goals. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of TE-IBRs from 2001 to 2018 was performed using an established breast reconstruction database. Demographics, medications, comorbidities, and complications were identified. Implant loss was defined as removal of the tissue expander/implant without immediate reimplantation during that operation. Hematoma size, management, transfusion requirement, reoperations, and final outcome were recorded. Reconstructive failure was defined as an implant loss that was not replaced with another implant or required secondary autologous reconstruction. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-seven TE-IBR patients were analyzed. Postoperative hematoma (group 1) occurred in 4.1% (n = 26) of TE-IBRs and did not develop in 95.9% (group 2: n = 601). Group 2 had a higher mean body mass index (24.5 vs 27.3 kg/m, P = 0.018); however, there were no significant differences in smoking status, preoperative/postoperative radiation/chemotherapy, or other comorbidities. Group 1 was found to have increased rates of implant loss (15.4% vs 3.7%, P = 0.0033) and reconstructive failure (11.5% vs 2.8%, P = 0.0133) compared with group 2.Eighteen hematomas (69.2%) underwent surgical intervention (group 1a) compared with 30.8% (n = 8) that were clinically managed (group 1b). Group 1a had statistically significant lower rates of subsequent complications (22.2% vs 62.5%, P = 0.046) and reoperations (5.6% vs 27.5%, P = 0.037) than did group 1b, respectively.Lastly, 23.1% (n = 6) of patients who developed a hematoma were on home antithrombotics (group 1c) compared with 76.9% (n = 20) of patients with no antithrombotics (group 1d). There were statistically significant differences in transfusion rates (50% vs 0%, P = 0.001) between groups 1c and 1d, respectively. Differences in hematoma volume (330 vs 169.3 mL, P = 0.078) and reconstructive failure (33.3% vs 5%, P = 0.057) approached significance between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hematoma after TE-IBR should be monitored closely, as it may play a role in jeopardizing reconstruction success. Patients on home antithrombotic medication may be at increased risk of larger-volume hematomas and reconstruction failure. Plastic surgeons should consider aggressive surgical evacuation of postoperative TE-IBR hematomas to reduce subsequent complications and reoperations, thus optimizing reconstructive outcomes.

Is There a Role for CT Pan-Scans in the Initial Workup of Fragility Fracture Patients?

INTRODUCTION: Computed tomography (CT) pan-scans have become increasingly commonplace as part of the initial diagnostic workup for patients sustaining traumatic injuries. They have proven effective in improving diagnostic accuracy in those with high-energy mechanisms of injury. However, the utility of pan-scans in the geriatric population sustaining low-energy traumatic injuries remains unproven. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of patients who sustained a fragility fracture at a level-1 trauma center over a 15-month period. Radiologist interpretations of any CT pan-scans were reviewed for acute findings, and charts were reviewed for resulting changes in orthopedic and nonorthopedic management. Additionally, mechanism of injury, definitive management, time to surgery, length of stay, level of care at discharge, and demographic data were compared against similar patients who did not receive a pan-scan. RESULTS: Of the 109 patients who underwent a CT pan-scan, 1 (0.92%) had a change in orthopedic treatment. Twelve (11.01%) patients had changes to their nonorthopedic management. In addition, 14 other patients had one or more consultations obtained based on pan-scan results that did not result in any change in management. Discussion: This study found that only 1 of the included patients had a change in orthopedic management and 12 had a change in nonorthopedic management, despite over half of the study population being found to have additional findings. Furthermore, patients who underwent a pan-scan did not have expedited surgical intervention or earlier discharges compared to those who were not pan-scanned. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates whole-body CT imaging provides little benefit in geriatric patients who sustain fragility fractures and should be utilized judiciously and in a targeted fashion instead of as a routine part of trauma surgery or emergency department protocol in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective Study.

Do Postoperative Prophylactic Antibiotics Reduce Highly Virulent Infections?: An Analysis of 660 Tissue Expander Breast Reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons are reluctant to discontinue prophylactic antibiotics after 24 hours in tissue expander breast reconstruction (TEBR) because of fear of increased risk of surgical site infection (SSI). Currently, there is no consensus regarding antibiotic prophylaxis duration in TEBR. In addition, there remains a lack of research investigating microorganisms involved in SSI across various perioperative antibiotic protocols. The purpose of this study was to examine how 2 different prophylactic antibiotic regimens impacted the bacterial profiles of SSI and rate of implant loss after TEBR. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of immediate TEBRs between 2001 and 2018 was performed. Surgical site infections requiring hospitalization before stage 2 were included. Highly virulent organisms were defined as ESKAPE pathogens (Enterococcus faecium, Staphylococcus aureus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acinetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter species). Implant loss was defined as removal of tissue expander without immediate replacement. RESULTS: Of 660 TEBRs, 85 (12.9%) developed an SSI requiring hospitalization before stage 2. Fifty-six (65.9%) received less than 24 hours of perioperative intravenous antibiotics and oral antibiotics after discharge (group 1), and 29 (34.1%) received less than 24 hours of intravenous antibiotics only (group 2). There was no significant difference in demographics, preoperative chemotherapy/radiation, acellular dermal matrix usage, or treatment of SSI between groups. In group 1, 64% (n = 36) developed culture positive SSIs, compared with 83% (n = 24) in group 2 (P = 0.076). Staphylococcus aureus was the most common bacteria in both groups. Group 2 demonstrated a significantly increased incidence of gram-positive organisms (46.4% vs 72.4%, P = 0.022) and S. aureus (21.4% vs 55.2%, P = 0.002). However, there was no significant difference in overall highly virulent (P = 0.168), gram-negative (P = 0.416), or total isolated organisms (P = 0.192). Implant loss between groups 1 and 2 (62.5% vs 62.1%, P = 0.969) respectively, was nearly identical. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that, despite differences in bacterial profiles between 2 antibiotic protocols, prolonged postoperative antibiotic use did not protect against overall highly virulent infections or implant loss. Antibiotic stewardship guidelines against the overuse of prolonged prophylactic regimens should be considered. Further analysis regarding timing of SSIs and antibiotic treatment is warranted.