Wise Pattern versus Transverse Pattern Mastectomy in Two-Stage Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Wise pattern adapted to mastectomy incisions has become a valuable asset for breast reconstruction in patients with large and ptotic breasts. The authors compared the time for exchange, time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy, and complication rates between Wise pattern and transverse incision pattern reconstructions. METHODS: Records of patients who underwent immediate, two-stage, implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR) between January of 2011 and December of 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Two cohorts were compared according to the incision pattern: Wise pattern versus transverse incision pattern. Complications were compared after propensity score matching. RESULTS: The authors initially analyzed 393 two-stage immediate IBBRs in 239 patients [91 IBBRs (23.2%) in the Wise pattern group and 302 (76.8%) in the transverse pattern group]. Expansion time (53 days versus 50 days, P = 0.9), time for tissue expander-to-implant exchange (154 versus 175 days, P = 0.547), and time to initiate postmastectomy radiotherapy (144 days versus 126 days, P = 0.616) were not different between groups. Before propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound-related complications (32% versus 10%, P < 0.001) and the 30-day rate of wound complications requiring excision/débridement and closure procedures (20% versus 7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in the Wise pattern group. After propensity score matching, the 30-day rate of wound complications was persistently higher (25% versus 10%, P = 0.03) in the Wise pattern group. CONCLUSIONS: The Wise pattern mastectomy independently increases the incidence of wound-related complications versus only transverse patterns during two-stage IBBR, even after propensity score matching. Delayed tissue expander placement may improve the safety profile of this procedure. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Minimally invasive harvest of the latissimus dorsi flap for breast reconstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Poor cosmetic results with oncoplastic and implant-based breast reconstruction have stimulated an interest in latissimus dorsi flap (LDF)-based reconstruction. We reviewed the surgical techniques and outcomes of the LDF harvested with minimally invasive surgery. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed-MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid-MEDLINE(R). Data on surgical outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: 31 articles were included reporting on 857 reconstructive procedures using a LDF harvested, 497 were endoscopic-assisted LDF (EALDF) (58%) and 174 were robotic-assisted LDF (RALDF) (20.3%). The average flap harvest time was 84.04-min for EALDF and 106.14-min for RALDF. With an EALDF, the incidence of haematoma, seroma, and wound dehiscence ranged between 0%-16.6%, 0%-48%, and 0%-6.2%, respectively. Using RALDF, the incidence of seroma was between 0%-26.1% and 0%-3.4% for haematoma. CONCLUSIONS: While the indications for a LDF harvested with MIS are limited, its main advantage for breast reconstruction is the absence of the back scar.

Preoperative Anemia Is Associated With Failure of Open Debridement Polyethylene Exchange in Acute and Acute Hematogenous Prosthetic Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: Acute and acute hematogenous prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are often treated with open debridement and polyethylene exchange (ODPE) in an effort to save the prosthesis, decrease morbidity, and reduce costs. However, failure of ODPE may compromise a subsequent 2-stage treatment. The purpose of this study is to identify patient factors that impact the success of ODPE for acute and acute hematogenous PJIs. METHODS: A retrospective review examined comorbidities, preoperative laboratory values, and patient history for patients with successful and failed ODPE treatment for acute perioperative or acute hematogenous periprosthetic hip or knee joint infections. Successful treatment was defined as retaining a well-fixed implant without the need for additional surgery for a minimum of 6-month follow-up with or without lifelong oral maintenance antibiotics. RESULTS: Fifty-three of 72 patients (73.6%) underwent successful ODPE. Of the 19 failures, 14 completed 2-stage revision with one subsequent known failure for recurrent infection. Patients with a Staphylococcus aureus infection were more likely to fail ODPE (48.3% vs 11.6%, P = .0012, odds ratio 7.1, 95% confidence interval 2.3-25.3). Patients with a preoperative hematocrit ≤32.1 were also more likely to fail ODPE (55% vs 16%, P = .0013, odds ratio 6.7, 95% confidence interval 2.2-22.4). When neither risk factor was present, 97.1% of PJIs were successfully treated with ODPE. CONCLUSION: S aureus infection and preoperative hematocrit ≤32.1 are independent risk factors for ODPE failure. ODPE is a safe alternative to 2-stage revision in patients without preoperative anemia and without S aureus infection. Two-thirds of patients with a failed ODPE were successfully treated with a 2-stage reimplantation.