Outcomes of Nipple-Sparing Mastectomy in the Ptotic and Non-Ptotic Breast with Staged-Immediate Reconstruction Timing and Pre-Pectoral, Direct-to-Implant Technique.

Background and objectives Proven to be oncologically safe, nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) preserves the entire breast skin envelope and is associated with higher patient satisfaction. However, breast ptosis is a relative contraindication to NSM, limiting who it is offered to. Direct-to-implant (DTI) breast reconstruction eliminates tissue expansion and shortens the reconstructive process but may be associated with mastectomy skin flap compromise after the placement of full-volume implants. Staged-immediate (SI) reconstruction initiates reconstruction two to three weeks after mastectomy. This timing and its use in DTI pre-pectoral (PP) breast reconstruction have not been reported. We aim to describe the outcomes of SI DTI PP reconstruction following NSM of ptotic and non-ptotic breasts. Methods Retrospective analysis utilizing descriptive statistics was completed evaluating patients who underwent nipple-sparing mastectomy with staged-immediate, pre-pectoral, direct-to-implant reconstruction by the senior author over a three-year period. Results and conclusions With SI timing, the majority of mastectomy-related problems occurred prior to implant placement, likely mitigating their effects on reconstruction following NSM, regardless of ptosis grade. Although a second procedure is needed for this reconstructive timing variation, over 50% of women achieved reconstruction completion at implant placement without further revision. These findings support the utility of SI timing in PP DTI reconstruction following NSM.

Postoperative Day 1 Discharge in Deep Inferior Epigastric Artery Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction.

With high success rates of autologous breast reconstruction, the focus has shifted from flap survival to improved patient outcomes. Historically, a criticism of autologous breast reconstruction has been the length of hospital stay. Our institution has progressively shortened the length of stay after deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction and began discharging select patients on postoperative day 1 (POD1). The purpose of this study was to document our experience with POD1 discharges and to identify preoperative and intraoperative factors that may identify patients as candidates for earlier discharge. Methods: An institutional review board-approved, retrospective chart review of patients undergoing DIEP flap breast reconstruction from January 2019 to March 2022 at Atrium Health was completed, consisting of 510 patients and 846 DIEP flaps. Patient demographics, medical history, operative course, and postoperative complications were collected. Results: Twenty-three patients totaling 33 DIEP flaps were discharged on POD1. The POD1 group and the group of all other patients (POD2+) had no difference in age, ASA score, or comorbidities. BMI was significantly lower in the POD1 group (P = 0.039). Overall operative time was significantly lower in the POD1 group, and this remained true when differentiating into unilateral operations (P = 0.023) and bilateral operations (P = 0.01). No major complications occurred in those discharged on POD1. Conclusions: POD1 discharge after DIEP flap breast reconstruction is safe for select patients. Lower BMI and shorter operative times may be predictive in identifying patients as candidates for earlier discharge.

Implementation of a Gastrografin Order Set for Small Bowel Obstruction Across a Health System: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of Gastrografin (GG) in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (SBO) has been shown to decrease the length of stay and operative intervention. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study examined patients with an SBO diagnosis prior to implementation (PRE, January 2017-January 2019) and following implementation (POST, January 2019-May 2021) of a GG challenge order set made available across 9 hospitals within a health care system. Primary outcomes were utilization of the order set across facilities and over time. Secondary outcomes included time to surgery for operative patients, rate of surgery, nonoperative length of stay, and 30-day readmission. Standard descriptive, univariate, and multivariable regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: PRE cohort had 1746 patients and POST had 1889. The utilization of GG increased from 14% to 49.5% following implementation. Significant variability existed within the hospital system with utilization at each individual hospital from 11.5% to 60%. There was an increase in surgical intervention (13.9% vs 16.4%, P = .04) and decrease in nonoperative LOS (65.6 vs 59.9 hours, P < .001) following implementation. For POST patients, multivariable linear regression showed significant reduction in nonoperative length of stay (-23.1 hours, P < .001) but no significant difference in time to surgery (-19.6 hours, P = .08). DISCUSSION: The availability of a standardized order set for SBO can result in increased Gastrografin administration across hospital settings. The implementation of a Gastrografin order set was associated with decreased length of stay in nonoperative patients.

Comparing Outcomes in the Therapeutic and Prophylactic Breast for Bilateral Mastectomy With Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly patients with unilateral breast cancer elect to undergo bilateral mastectomy with subsequent reconstruction. Studies have aimed to better identify the risks associated with performing mastectomy on the noncancerous breast. Our study aims to identify differences in complications between therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomy in patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2015 to 2020 at our institution was completed. Patients with less than 6-month follow-up after final implant placement had reconstruction using autologous flaps, expander or implant rupture, metastatic disease requiring device removal, or death before completion of reconstruction were excluded. McNemar test identified differences in incidence of complications for therapeutic and prophylactic breasts. RESULTS: After analysis of 215 patients, we observed no significant difference in incidence of infection, ischemia, or hematoma between the therapeutic and prophylactic sides. Therapeutic mastectomies had higher odds of seroma formation ( P = 0.03; odds ratio, 3.500; 95% confidence interval, 1.099-14.603). Radiation treatment status was analyzed for patients with seroma; 14% of patients unilateral seroma of the therapeutic side underwent radiation (2 of 14), compared with 25% patients with unilateral seroma of the prophylactic side (1 of 4). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction, the therapeutic mastectomy side has an increased risk of seroma formation.