Aesthetic, Quality-of-Life, and Clinical Outcomes after Inferior Pedicle Oncoplastic Reduction Mammoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast surgery is more likely to achieve superior aesthetic outcomes compared to lumpectomy alone. Oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty (ORM) is a volume displacement oncoplastic technique that combines lumpectomy and reduction mammoplasty. Data on aesthetic and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes after ORM are scarce in the literature. Based on a literature review, this present study reports outcomes on the largest group of ORM patients to date. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent ORM between 2011 and 2018 at a tertiary care centre. Patients were excluded if no pedicle information was available or did not undergo post-operative radiotherapy. All patients with available post-operative photographs were aesthetically evaluated by four blinded, independent investigators blinded based on breast symmetry, nipple symmetry, and overall appearance. The BREAST-Q (breast conserving module) was used to assess QoL outcomes. RESULTS: Two-hundred-and-sixteen consecutive patients (223 breasts) were included. Macromastia (cup size D or higher) was present in 173 patients (80.1%). Inferior pedicle ORM was utilized in 179 (80.3%) breasts. Eighty-eight patients (40.7%) were aesthetically evaluated, of whom 69 patients (78.4%) had "good", "very good", or "excellent" grades in all aesthetic categories. Seventy-five patients (85.2%) had "good" or better grades in overall appearance. Preoperative ptosis grade, cup size, presence of post-operative complications, and breast specimen weight had no significant correlations with aesthetic grades. Inferior pedicle ORM was associated with a higher "satisfaction with breast" Q-score (p=0.017) compared to other pedicle approaches. CONCLUSION: Inferior pedicle ORM achieves objectively excellent aesthetic outcomes and high patient satisfaction with the reconstruction. 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 .

Prophylactic Lymphaticovenous Anastomosis Performed with Lymphadenectomy is Oncologically Safe for Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: A major concern of lymphaticovenous anastomosis (LVA), which has not been studied, is increased risk of metastasis. Melanoma patients with macrometastatic lymph node disease represent a high-risk group for recurrence and metastasis. On the basis of a literature review, this present study is the first to evaluate the impact of prophylactic LVA on cancer survival and recurrence. METHODS: This was a comparison study of patients with cutaneous melanoma who underwent therapeutic lymphadenectomy alone (comparison group) or combined with prophylactic LVA (LVA group) between 2014 and 2020. A single surgeon performed all cancer resections, therapeutic lymphadenectomies, and LVA. Exclusion criteria included non-melanoma skin cancers, stage IV cancers before lymphadenectomy, microscopic lymphatic disease (i.e., positive sentinel node biopsy was the sole indication for lymph node dissection), or follow-up time less than 12 months unless the patient died earlier owing to melanoma-related complications. RESULTS: This study included 23 patients in the LVA group and 22 consecutive patients in the comparison group. The two groups were similar in age, sex, and cancer stages. The comparison group had longer follow-up times (median 67.62 versus 29.73 months in the LVA group; p < 0.01). Average size of largest metastatic lymph node was 45.91 ± 35.03 mm and 44.54 ± 23.32 mm in the LVA and comparison groups, respectively (p = 0.99). There were no differences in OS, DMFS, and RFS times after more than 2 years of follow-up since the index surgery. CONCLUSION: Prophylactic LVA performed for macrometastatic melanoma is not a strong risk factor for relapse and metastasis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II Therapeutic.

Neurotization Does not Prolong Operative Time in Free Flap Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Neurotization during the breast reconstruction process can improve patient quality-of-life and satisfaction with reconstructive outcomes. One concern with neurotization is increased total operative time due to the need for additional dissection and nerve coaptation. The purpose of this study was to compare total operative time between neurotized and non-neurotized abdominal-based, free flap breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients who underwent unilateral, abdominal-based, free flap breast reconstruction between 2016 and 2018 at a single tertiary care center. Data were collected on patient demographics, surgical techniques, and length of surgery. Data analysis was performed using chi-square test, independent t-test, and multivariate linear regression analysis. A p-value ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients were included in this study. Twenty-three patients (31.50%) underwent flap neurotization (N group) and 50 (68.49%) underwent standard breast reconstruction without neurotization (NO group). The groups were similar in age, BMI, smoking status, and ASA class. No difference was found between the two groups in timing of reconstruction (p = 0.388). Average operative times were 467.73 ± 145.52 minutes and 455.28 ± 111.19 minutes for the N and NO groups, respectively, with no significant difference between the two groups (two-tailed p-value = 0.72). CONCLUSION: Seamless integration of neurotization in abdominal-based, free flap breast reconstruction is possible without significant prolongation of total operative time. 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 .