No Skin Paddle, No Problem: Burying Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Flaps in the Immediate Setting is Safe in Select Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND: In appropriately selected patients, it may be possible to fully bury breast free flaps deep to the mastectomy skin flaps. Because this practice forgoes the incorporation of a monitoring skin paddle for the flap, and thus limits the ability for physical exam, it may be associated with an increased risk of flap loss or other perfusion-related complications, such as fat necrosis. We hypothesized that fully de-epithelialized breast free flaps were not associated with an increased complication rate and reduced the need for future revision surgery. METHODS: A single-institution retrospective review of 206 deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEP) flaps in 142 patients was performed between June 2016 and September 2021. Flaps were grouped into buried or nonburied categories based on the absence or presence of a monitoring paddle. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed postoperatively using the BREAST-Q breast reconstruction module. Electronic medical record data included demographics, comorbidities, flap characteristics, complications, and revision surgery. RESULTS: The buried flap patients (N = 46) had a lower median body mass index (26.9 vs 30.3, p = 0.04) and a lower rate of hypertension (19.5 vs. 37.5%, p = 0.04) compared with nonburied flap patients (N = 160). Burying flaps was more likely to be adopted in skin-sparing mastectomy or nipple-sparing mastectomy (p = 0.001) and in an immediate or a delayed-immediate fashion (p = 0.009). There was one flap loss in the nonburied group; complication rates were similar. There was a significantly greater revision rate in the nonburied flap patients (92 vs. 70%; p = 0.002). Buried flap patients exhibited a greater satisfaction with breasts (84.5 ± 13.4 vs. 73.9 ± 21.4; p = 0.04) and sexual satisfaction (73.1 ± 22.4 vs. 53.7 ± 29.7; p = 0.01) compared with nonburied flap patients. CONCLUSION: Burying breast free flaps in appropriately selected patients does not appear to have a higher complication rate when compared with flaps with an externalized monitoring paddle. Furthermore, this modification may be associated with a better immediate aesthetic outcome and improved patient satisfaction, as evidenced by a lower rate of revision surgery and superior BREAST-Q scores among buried DIEP flaps.

Premastectomy Radiotherapy and Immediate Breast Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Premastectomy radiotherapy (PreMRT) is a new treatment sequence to avoid the adverse effects of radiotherapy on the final breast reconstruction while achieving the benefits of immediate breast reconstruction (IMBR). Objective: To evaluate outcomes among patients who received PreMRT and regional nodal irradiation (RNI) followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a phase 2 single-center randomized clinical trial conducted between August 3, 2018, and August 2, 2022, evaluating the feasibility and safety of PreMRT and RNI (including internal mammary lymph nodes). Patients with cT0-T3, N0-N3b breast cancer and a recommendation for radiotherapy were eligible. Intervention: This trial evaluated outcomes after PreMRT followed by mastectomy and IMBR. Patients were randomized to receive either hypofractionated (40.05 Gy/15 fractions) or conventionally fractionated (50 Gy/25 fractions) RNI. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was reconstructive failure, defined as complete autologous flap loss. Demographic, treatment, and outcomes data were collected, and associations between multiple variables and outcomes were evaluated. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Fifty patients were enrolled. Among 49 evaluable patients, the median age was 48 years (range, 31-72 years), and 46 patients (94%) received neoadjuvant systemic therapy. Twenty-five patients received 50 Gy in 25 fractions to the breast and 45 Gy in 25 fractions to regional nodes, and 24 patients received 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions to the breast and 37.5 Gy in 15 fractions to regional nodes, including internal mammary lymph nodes. Forty-eight patients underwent mastectomy with IMBR, at a median of 23 days (IQR, 20-28.5 days) after radiotherapy. Forty-one patients had microvascular autologous flap reconstruction, 5 underwent latissimus dorsi pedicled flap reconstruction, and 2 had tissue expander placement. There were no complete autologous flap losses, and 1 patient underwent tissue expander explantation. Eight of 48 patients (17%) had mastectomy skin flap necrosis of the treated breast, of whom 1 underwent reoperation. During follow-up (median, 29.7 months [range, 10.1-65.2 months]), there were no locoregional recurrences or distant metastasis. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found PreMRT and RNI followed by mastectomy and microvascular autologous flap IMBR to be feasible and safe. Based on these results, a larger randomized clinical trial of hypofractionated vs conventionally fractionated PreMRT has been started (NCT05774678). Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02912312.

Oncoplastic Reconstruction in the Setting of Prior Cosmetic Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: This study explores the surgical management and reconstruction options for augmented breasts in the context of breast conservation therapy (BCT) for breast cancer. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in the rates of complications, revisions, or patient satisfaction in patients who maintained their breast augmentation versus those that had their implants removed in the context of BCT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of 142 patients who underwent BCT at a single center from March 2016 to March 2022. The study included patients who had a preexistent cosmetic augmentation at the time of breast cancer diagnosis and BCT. Patient demographics, clinical and treatment characteristics, breast implant details, reconstructive technique, complications, and revisions were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the BREAST-Q Breast-Conserving Therapy module. RESULTS: Ninety-three (65.5%) patients chose to maintain their implants, while 49 (34.5%) elected to have them removed during BCT. Patients with submuscular implants were more likely to maintain their implants. Oncoplastic mastopexy was associated with higher complication rates, particularly in patients opting for implant downsizing. However, multivariate logistic regression did not identify implant management strategy as an independent predictor for complications or revisions. Surgical site infection was the only predictor of implant explantation. Patient-reported outcomes did not differ significantly between the different implant management cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that maintaining breast implants during BCT does not increase the risk of complications or revisions. Overall, BCT in augmented women was found to be a safe approach, with high patient satisfaction.

The lateral forearm flap versus traditional upper extremity flaps: A comparison of donor site morbidity and flap thickness.

INTRODUCTION: The lateral forearm flap (LFF) is a thin fasciocutaneous flap with a donor site that can be closed primarily. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of donor site morbidity and hand function was performed in patients who underwent a radial forearm flap (RFF), ulnar artery perforator flap (UAPF), or LFF. Flap thickness was evaluated radiographically in 50 control patients. RESULTS: Of 134 patients (lateral forearm flap: n = 49, RFF: n = 47, UAPF: n = 38), the LFF demonstrated significantly faster return to baseline hand grip strength (3 months vs. 12 months in RFF and UAPF; p < 0.001), had significantly fewer donor site complications (6.1% compared to 6.4% in RFF and 28.9% in UAPF; p = 0.003) and fewer sensory deficits (2.0% compared to 6.4% in RFF and 15.8% in UAPF sites; p = 0.013). The radiographic study confirmed the LFF to be the thinnest of all upper extremity flap options. CONCLUSIONS: The LFF is an excellent forearm-based flap option with thin, pliable tissue and low donor site morbidity.

Long-term Surgical and Patient-Reported Outcomes Comparing Skin-Preserving, Staged Versus Delayed Microvascular Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Skin-preserving, staged, microvascular, breast reconstruction often is preferred in patients requiring postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) but may lead to complications. We compared the long-term surgical and patient-reported outcomes between skin-preserving and delayed microvascular breast reconstruction with and without PMRT. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent mastectomy and microvascular breast reconstruction between January 2016 and April 2022. The primary outcome was any flap-related complication. The secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes and tissue-expander complications. RESULTS: We identified 1002 reconstructions (672 delayed; 330 skin-preserving) in 812 patients. Mean follow-up was 24.2 ± 19.3 months. PMRT was required in 564 reconstructions (56.3%). In the non-PMRT group, skin-preserving reconstruction was independently associated with shorter hospital stay (ß - 0.32, p = 0.045) and lower odds of 30-days readmission (odds ratio [OR] 0.44, p = 0.042), seroma (OR 0.42, p = 0.036), and hematoma (OR 0.24, p = 0.011) compared with delayed reconstruction. In the PMRT group, skin-preserving reconstruction was independently associated with shorter hospital stay (ß - 1.15, p < 0.001) and operative time (ß - 97.0, p < 0.001) and lower odds of 30-days readmission (OR 0.29, p = 0.005) and infection (OR 0.33, p = 0.023) compared with delayed reconstruction. Skin-preserving reconstruction had a 10.6% tissue expander loss rate and did not differ from delayed reconstruction in terms of patient-reported satisfaction with breast, psychosocial well-being, or sexual well-being. CONCLUSIONS: Skin-preserving, staged, microvascular, breast reconstruction is safe regardless of the need for PMRT, with an acceptable tissue expander loss rate, and is associated with improved flap outcomes and similar patient-reported quality of life to that of delayed reconstruction.

A nationwide cross-sectional study on the association of patient-level factors with financial anxiety in the context of chronic medical conditions.

Patient-level characteristics associated with the prevalence and severity of financial anxiety have yet to be described. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of survey data assessing financial anxiety in patients with chronic medical conditions in December 2020. 1771 patients (42.6% response rate) participated in the survey. Younger age (19-35 age compared to ≥ 75 age) (ß, 5.86; 95% CI 2.10-9.63), male sex (ß, - 1.9; 95% CI - 3.1 to - 0.73), Hispanic/Latino race/ethnicity (compared with White patients) (ß, 2.55; 95% CI 0.39-4.71), household size ≥ 4 (compare with single household) (ß, 4.54; 95% CI 2.44-6.64), household income of ≥ $96,000-$119,999 (compared with ≤ $23,999) (ß, - 3.2; 95% CI - 6.3 to 0.04), single marital status (compared with married) (ß, 2.18; 95% CI 0.65-3.71), unemployment (ß, 2.07; 95% CI 0.39-3.74), high-school education (compared with advanced degrees) (ß, 3.10; 95% CI 1.32-4.89), lack of insurance coverage (compared with private insurance) (ß, 6.05; 95% CI 2.66-9.45), more comorbidities (≥ 3 comorbidities compared to none) (ß, 2.95; 95% CI 1.00-4.90) were all independently associated with financial anxiety. Patients who are young, female, unmarried, and representing vulnerable sub-populations are at elevated risk for financial anxiety.

Ensuring Safety While Achieving Beauty: An Evidence-Based Approach to Optimizing Mastectomy and Autologous Breast Reconstruction Outcomes in Patients with Obesity.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity has previously been associated with poor outcomes after mastectomy and breast reconstruction, its impact across the WHO obesity classification spectrum and the differential effects of various optimization strategies on patient outcomes have yet to be delineated. We sought to examine the impact of WHO obesity classification on intraoperative surgical and medical complications, postoperative surgical and patient-reported outcomes of mastectomy and autologous breast reconstruction, and delineate outcomes optimization strategies for obese patients. STUDY DESIGN: This is a review of consecutive patients who underwent mastectomy and autologous breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2022. Primary outcomes were complication rates. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes and optimal management strategies. RESULTS: We identified 1,640 mastectomies and reconstructions in 1,240 patients with mean follow-up of 24.2 ± 19.2 months. Patients with class II/III obesity had higher adjusted risk of wound dehiscence (odds ratio [OR] 3.20; p < 0.001), skin flap necrosis (OR 2.60; p < 0.001), deep venous thrombosis (OR 3.90; p < 0.033), and pulmonary embolism (OR 15.3; p = 0.001) than nonobese patients. Obese patients demonstrated significantly lower satisfaction with breasts (67.3 ± 27.7 vs 73.7 ± 24.0; p = 0.043) and psychological well-being (72.4 ± 27.0 vs 82.0 ± 20.8; p = 0.001) than nonobese patients. Unilateral delayed reconstructions were associated with independently shorter hospital stay (ß -0.65; p = 0.002) and lower adjusted risk of 30-day readmission (OR 0.45; p = 0.031), skin flap necrosis (OR 0.14; p = 0.031), and pulmonary embolism (OR 0.07; p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Obese women should be closely monitored for adverse events and lower quality of life, offered measures to optimize thromboembolic prophylaxis, and advised on the risks and benefits of unilateral delayed reconstruction.

Introduction of the L-PAP Flap: Bipedicled, Conjoined, and Stacked Thigh-Based Flaps for Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

SUMMARY: Thigh-based flaps are increasingly popular options for autologous breast reconstruction in the setting of abdominal donor-site inadequacy, previous surgery, or patient preference, but the volume and skin associated with these flaps are often lacking relative to the abdomen. An individualized, shared decision-making approach to donor-site selection was adopted based on body shape, surgical history, lifestyle, reconstructive needs, and patient expectations. Different thigh-based flaps combined in stacked, bipedicled, or conjoined configurations were selected to maximize efficient use of available soft-tissue skin and volume while optimizing donor-site aesthetics. A total of 23 thigh-based stacked, bipedicled, or conjoined profunda artery perforator (PAP), lateral thigh perforator (LTP), or gracilis musculocutaneous flap components were used in six patients. Configurations included bilateral stacked PAP and LTP flaps, bipedicled posterolateral thigh flaps based on the LTP and PAP (L-PAP), and bipedicled thigh flaps based on the gracilis and PAP pedicles. Most anastomoses were performed to the antegrade and retrograde internal mammary vessels; intraflap anastomoses were performed in one case. There were no partial or total flap losses. There was one donor-site seroma. Design of stacked, bipedicled, and conjoined thigh-based flaps using multiple conventional flap components allows for tailored approaches to donor-site utilization based on individual body shape in selected patients. Bipedicled design with the L-PAP flap represents one strategy in appropriate cases to overcome skin and volume deficiencies while facilitating coning and projection. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Treatment of multiple limb lymphedema with combined supermicrosurgical techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Lymphedema surgery including lymphovenous anastomosis (LVA) and vascularized lymph node transfer (VLNT) are effective treatments for lymphedema; however, treating multiple limbs in a single operation using both approaches has not been described. We hypothesize multiple limb lymphedema can be treated effectively in one operation. PATIENT AND METHODS: Retrospective review of seven patients undergoing extreme lymphedema surgery (mean age: 53.2 years; range: 33-66 years) with an average BMI of 34.8 kg/m2 (range: 17.6-53.6 kg/m2 ). Two patients developed bilateral upper extremity (UE) lymphedema secondary to breast cancer treatment, three had bilateral lower extremity (LE) lymphedema, and two suffered from lymphedema of all four extremities due to breast cancer treatment. RESULTS: One patient with bilateral UE lymphedema was treated with bilateral inguinal node transfers with LVA and the other with combined bilateral DIEP flaps and inguinal node transfers with LVA. Three patients had bilateral LE lymphedema: two were treated with split omental/gastroepiploic nodes, and one underwent simultaneous supraclavicular and submental node transfers. LVAs were performed in one leg in each patient. Two patients with four-limb lymphedema underwent bilateral inguinal node transfers with DIEP flaps and bilateral LE LVA. In total, there were eight UE and 10 LE treated. Average follow-up was 15.8 months (range: 12.6-28.4 months), all patients reported subjective improvement in symptoms, were able to decrease use of compression garments and pumps, and no patients developed cellulitis. CONCLUSION: Patients suffering from lymphedema of multiple extremities can be treated safely and effectively combining both LVA and VLNT in a single operation.

Area Deprivation Index is Associated with Variation in Quality of Life and Psychosocial Well-being Following Breast Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood-level factors have been shown to influence surgical outcomes through material deprivation, psychosocial mechanisms, health behaviors, and access to resources. To date, no study has examined the relationship between area-level deprivation (ADI) and post-mastectomy outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of adult female breast cancer patients who underwent lumpectomy or mastectomy between January 2018 to June 2019 was carried out. Patient-specific characteristics and ADI information were abstracted and correlated with postoperative global- (SF-12) and condition-specific (BREAST-Q) quality-of-life performance via multivariable regression. Patients were classified into three ADI terciles: 0-39 (low deprivation), 40-59 (moderate deprivation), and 60-100 (high deprivation). RESULTS: A total of 564 consecutive patients were identified, being mostly white (75%) with mean age of 60.2 ± 12.4 years, median body mass index of 27.8 [interquartile range (IQR) 24.3-32.2) kg/m2, median Charlson Comorbidity Index of 3 (IQR 2-5), and mean ADI of 42.3 ± 25.7. African American and Hispanic patients and those with high BMI were more likely to reside in highly deprived neighborhoods (p = 0.003 and p < 0.001). In adjusted models, patients in highly deprived neighborhoods had significantly lower mean SF-12 physical (44.9 [95% CI, 43.8-46.0] versus 44.9 [95% CI, 43.7-46.1] versus 46.3 [95% CI, 45.3-47.3], p = 0.03) and BREAST-Q psychosocial well-being scores (63.5 [95% CI, 59.32-67.8] versus 69.3 [95% CI, 65.1-73.6] versus 69.7 [95% CI, 66.4-73.1], p = 0.01) relative to moderate- and low-deprivation groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients residing in the most deprived neighborhoods were identified to have worse psychological well-being and quality-of-life. The ADI should be incorporated into the shared decision-making process and perioperative counseling to engender value-based and personalized care, especially for vulnerable populations.

Outcomes of Autologous Free Flap Reconstruction Following Infected Device Explantation.

BACKGROUND: Following implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) infection and explantation, autologous reconstruction is a common option for patients who desire further reconstruction. However, few data exist about the outcomes of secondary autologous reconstruction (i.e., free flap breast reconstruction) in this population. We hypothesized that autologous reconstruction following infected device explantation is safe and has comparable surgical outcomes to delayed-immediate reconstruction. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent IBR explantation due to infection from 2006 through 2019, followed by secondary autologous reconstruction. The control cohort comprised patients who underwent planned primary delayed-immediate reconstruction (tissue expander followed by autologous flap) in 2018. RESULTS: We identified 38 secondary autologous reconstructions after failed primary IBR and 52 primary delayed-immediate reconstructions. Between secondary autologous and delayed-immediate reconstructions, there were no significant differences in overall complications (29 and 37%, respectively, p = 0.45), any breast-related complications (18 and 21%, respectively, p = 0.75), or any major breast-related complications (13 and10%, respectively, p = 0.74). Two flap losses were identified in the secondary autologous reconstruction group while no flap losses were reported in the delayed-immediate reconstruction group (p = 0.18). CONCLUSION: Autologous reconstruction is a reasonable and safe option for patients who require explantation of an infected prosthetic device. Failure of primary IBR did not confer significantly higher risk of complications after secondary autologous flap reconstruction compared with primary delayed-immediate reconstruction. This information can help plastic surgeons with shared decision-making and counseling for patients who desire reconstruction after infected device removal.

Master's Degrees Among Academic Plastic Surgeons and Plastic Surgery Residents: What Are the Trends?

BACKGROUND: As more plastic surgery clinicians pursue advanced degrees and strive to become stronger physician-scientists, an objective understanding of how such degrees influence careers becomes important. We hypothesized that having a master's degree is associated with higher scholarly activity, research funding, academic progression, and leadership appointments. METHODS: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited integrated plastic surgery residency program Web sites were queried to create a data set of current academic plastic surgeons (APSs) and plastic surgery residents (PSRs). Scholarly metrics such as publications, citations, and H-indices were extracted from the Scopus database. National Institutes of Health and Plastic Surgery Foundation funding information was collected through their respective Web sites. RESULTS: Our cohort comprised 799 APSs and 922 PSRs, of whom 8% and 7.4%, respectively, had at least one master's degree. Academic plastic surgeons with master's of public health degrees had a significantly higher median number of publications and citations than APSs without a master's of public health. There was no association between any master's degree and academic rank or being a department chairman or program director. Academic plastic surgeons with master of science degrees were more likely to receive National Institutes of Health grants. Among PSRs, master's of science graduates had a higher median number of publications. Other master's degrees did not significantly influence scholarly productivity or funding. CONCLUSIONS: Certain master's degrees had an impact on scholarly productivity, with no significant effect on academic rank or leadership positions. The value of master's degrees in programs focusing on healthcare management, leadership skills, and business acumen likely extends beyond the scope of this study.

An Algorithmic Approach to Umbilical Inset during DIEP Flap Reconstruction.

SUMMARY: An aesthetically pleasing umbilicus is a critical component to the overall cosmesis and resultant patient satisfaction after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap breast reconstruction. Because of variables in body habitus, comorbidities, and technical aspects of the procedure, patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction are at a higher risk of umbilical complications and poor aesthetic appearance of the neoumbilicus compared with those undergoing cosmetic abdominoplasty. To minimize these potential problems and maximize the overall aesthetic appearance of the abdomen, the authors propose an algorithmic approach to umbilical inset after DIEP flap harvest that takes into account several critical factors: the thickness of the subcutaneous tissue of the abdominal flap, the length of the umbilical stalk, and the depth of the umbilical bowl. This simple algorithmic approach is a useful tool that will assist surgeons in minimizing umbilical complications and delivering a superior cosmetic appearance to the abdominal donor site in DIEP flap reconstruction.

Does a Latissimus Dorsi Flap Improve Surgical Outcomes of Implant-based Breast Reconstruction following Infected Device Explantation?

Background: The goal of this study was to assess whether adding a latissimus dorsi (LD) flap to a secondary implant-based reconstruction (IBR) improves outcomes following explantation of the primary device due to infection. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent a second IBR with or without the addition of an LD flap during 2006-2019, following explantation due to infection. Surgical outcomes were collected and compared between reconstruction types. Results: A total of 6093 IBRs were identified during the study period. Of these, 109 underwent a second attempt at breast reconstruction with IBR alone (n = 86, 79%) or IBR/LD (n = 23, 21%) following explantation of an infected device. Rates of secondary device explantation due to a complication were similar between the two groups (26% in the IBR/LD group and 21% in the IBR group; P = 0.60). Among the patients who underwent prior radiotherapy, the IBR/LD group had lower rates of any complication (38% versus 56%; P = 0.43), infection (25% versus 44%; P = 0.39), and reconstruction failure (25% versus 44%; P = 0.39); however, differences were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Following a failed primary breast reconstruction due to infection, it may be appropriate to offer a secondary reconstruction. For patients with a history of radiotherapy, combining an LD flap with IBR may provide benefits over IBR alone. Although not statistically different, this outcome may have clinical significance, considering the magnitude of the effect, and may result in decreased complication rates and a higher chance of reconstructive success.

Determinants of telemedicine adoption among financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from a nationwide study.

PURPOSE: Telemedicine use during the COVID-19 pandemic among financially distressed patients with cancer, with respect to the determinants of adoption and patterns of utilization, has yet to be delineated. We sought to systematically characterize telemedicine utilization in financially distressed patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of nationwide survey data assessing telemedicine use in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic collected by Patient Advocate Foundation (PAF) in December 2020. Patients were characterized as financially distressed by self-reporting limited financial resources to manage out-of-pocket costs, psychological distress, and/or adaptive coping behaviors. Primary study outcome was telemedicine utilization during the pandemic. Secondary outcomes were telemedicine utilization volume and modality preferences. Multivariable and Poisson regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with telemedicine use. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 627 patients with cancer responded to the PAF survey. Telemedicine adoption during the pandemic was reported by 67% of patients, with most (63%) preferring video visits. Younger age (19-35 age compared to ≥ 75 age) (OR, 6.07; 95% CI, 1.47-25.1) and more comorbidities (≥ 3 comorbidities compared to cancer only) (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.65) were factors associated with telemedicine adoption. Younger age (19-35 years) (incidence rate ratios [IRR], 1.78; 95% CI, 24-115%) and higher comorbidities (≥ 3) (IRR; 1.36; 95% CI, 20-55%) were factors associated with higher utilization volume. As area deprivation index increased by 10 units, the number of visits decreased by 3% (IRR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.03-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid adoption of telemedicine may exacerbate existing inequities, particularly among vulnerable financially distressed patients with cancer. Policy-level interventions are needed for the equitable and efficient provision of this service.

Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction following Infected Device Explantation: Is a Second Attempt Worth It?

BACKGROUND: Infection is a dreaded complication of implant-based breast reconstruction. There is a paucity of literature on the outcomes of a secondary reconstruction after infected implant-based breast reconstruction explantation. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective study of patients who underwent a second implant-based breast reconstruction following a failed infected device between January of 2006 and December of 2019. Surgical and patient-reported outcomes (BREAST-Q) were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 6093 implant-based breast reconstructions were performed during the study period, 298 (5 percent) of which involved device removal because of infection. Eighty-three patients ultimately received 92 second-attempt breast implants. Thirty-six percent of cases developed at least one postoperative complication, with infection [23 breasts (25 percent)] being the most common. Compared with first-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction, we found significantly higher infection rates among second-attempt cases (9 percent and 21 percent, respectively; p = 0.0008). Patient-reported satisfaction with the breast and sexual well-being were lower after second-attempt than after first-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction ( p = 0.018 and p = 0.002, respectively) reported in the literature. Mean follow-up was 41 ± 35 months. If we exclude patients with prior radiation therapy and those who received device exchange, the success rate is 88 percent. CONCLUSIONS: It is reasonable to offer women second-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction after explantation because of infection. However, this patient population has a higher infection and explantation rate and lower patient-reported satisfaction than patients undergoing first-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction. Because of these increased surgical risks and elevated complication rates, patients must be given reasonable expectations during preoperative discussions and when providing informed consent for second-attempt implant-based breast reconstruction. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Impact of Predatory Journals in Plastic Surgery Literature: Researchers Beware.

BACKGROUND: Predatory journals have exploited the open access publishing model and are considered as a major threat to the integrity of scientific research. The goal of this study was to characterize predatory publishing practices in plastic surgery. METHODS: To identify potentially predatory journals in the field of plastic surgery, the authors searched the Cabells' Predatory Reports and Beall's List using preidentified keywords. For presumed legitimate open access journals, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) was queried. The characteristics of potentially predatory journals were compared to those of legitimate open access plastic surgery journals. RESULTS: The authors identified a total of 25 plastic surgery-focused journals. Out of the 25 potentially predatory journals, only 15 journals had articles published within the last 5 years, with a mean number of articles of 33 ± 39 (range, 2 to 159 articles). The mean number of predatory violations according to Cabells' criteria was 6.8 ± 1.4 (range, 3 to 9). Using the DOAJ database, the authors identified a total of 24 plastic surgery-related journals. Compared to potentially predatory journals, journals from the DOAJ were more likely to be indexed in PubMed (0 versus 50 percent, respectively, p < 0.0001). Time to publication was significantly higher in journals from the DOAJ (17 ± 7 versus 4 ± 1 weeks; p = 0.006). Despite higher article processing charges in the DOAJ group, this difference was not statically significant ($1425 ± $717 versus $1071 ± $1060; p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Predatory journals are pervasive in the medical literature and plastic surgery is no exception. Plastic surgeons should practice due diligence when choosing a target journal for their articles. Journals with predatory practices should be distinguished from legitimate open access publication platforms.

Robotic Harvest of the Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap for Breast Reconstruction: A Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Robotic surgery is emerging as a viable tool in reconstructive surgery. Harvesting of the deep inferior epigastric perforator flap is typically performed through an anterior approach, which involves a long fascial incision. A robotic approach allows the deep inferior epigastric pedicle to be harvested from the posterior surface. This approach reduces the length of the fascial incision and should decrease the abdominal morbidity associated with large fascial dissections. METHODS: A case series study of 21 patients who underwent a robotic deep inferior epigastric perforator or during a 12-month period for breast reconstruction was performed. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 54.6 ± 7.6 years, and mean body mass index was 30.4 ± 3.9 kg/m2. Mean fascial incision and pedicle length were 3.6 ± 1.6 cm and 13.3 ± 1 cm, respectively. None of the patients required conversion to open harvest. Mean length of hospital stay was 3.8 ± 0.9 days. Surgical site occurrences were identified in five patients (31.3 percent). One patient had delayed wound healing at the donor site. None of the patients developed hernia or bulge. The mean benefit (B = C - A), defined as length of fascial incision spared and measured as the difference between pedicle length and intramuscular course, was 9.83 ± 2.28 cm. The precision of computed tomography angiography in identifying the intraoperative fascial incision was 86 percent. CONCLUSION: The robotic deep inferior epigastric perforator flap is a safe and reliable technique that decreases the length of fascial incision and short-term complications associated with the open approach. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.