Impact of Gabapentin on Postoperative Hypotension in Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocols for Microvascular Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been associated with hypotensive episodes after autologous breast reconstruction. Gabapentin (Gaba), a nonopioid analgesic used in ERAS, has been shown to attenuate postoperative hemodynamic responses. This study assesses ERAS's impact, with and without Gaba, on postoperative hypotension after microvascular breast reconstruction. Methods: Three cohorts were studied: traditional pathway, ERAS + Gaba, and ERAS no-Gaba. We evaluated length of stay, inpatient narcotic use [morphine milligram equivalents (MME)], mean systolic blood pressure, hypotension incidence, and complications. The traditional cohort was retrospectively reviewed, whereas the ERAS groups were enrolled prospectively after the initiation of the protocol in April 2019 (inclusive of Gaba until October 2022). Results: In total, 441 patients were analyzed. The three cohorts, in the order mentioned above, were similar in age and bilateral reconstruction rates (57% versus 61% versus 60%). The ERAS cohorts, both with and without Gaba, had shorter stays (P < 0.01). Inpatient MME was significantly less in the ERAS + Gaba cohort than the traditional or ERAS no-Gaba cohorts (medians: 112 versus 178 versus 158 MME, P < 0.01). ERAS + Gaba significantly increased postoperative hypotensive events on postoperative day (POD) 1 and 2, with notable reduction after Gaba removal (P < 0.05). Across PODs 0-2, mean systolic blood pressure was highest in the traditional cohort, followed by ERAS no-Gaba, then the ERAS + Gaba cohort (P < 0.05). Complication rates were similar across all cohorts. Conclusions: Postmicrovascular breast reconstruction, ERAS + Gaba reduced overall inpatient narcotic usage, but increased hypotension incidence. Gaba removal from the ERAS protocol reduced postoperative hypotension incidence while maintaining similar stay lengths and complication rates.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Protocol Decreases Length of Stay and Postoperative Narcotic Use in Microvascular Breast Reconstruction.

Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have demonstrated efficacy following microvascular breast reconstruction. This study assesses the impact of an ERAS protocol following microvascular breast reconstruction at a high-volume center. Methods: The ERAS protocol introduced preoperative counseling, multimodal analgesia, early diet resumption, and early mobilization to our microvascular breast reconstruction procedures. Data, including length of stay, body mass index, inpatient narcotic use, outpatient narcotic prescriptions, inpatient pain scores, and complications, were prospectively collected for all patients undergoing microvascular breast reconstruction between April 2019 and July 2021. Traditional pathway patients who underwent reconstruction immediately before ERAS implementation were retrospectively reviewed as controls. Results: The study included 200 patients, 99 in traditional versus 101 in ERAS. Groups were similar in body mass index, age (median age: traditional, 54.0 versus ERAS, 50.0) and bilateral reconstruction rates (59.6% versus 61.4%). ERAS patients had significantly shorter lengths of stay, with 96.0% being discharged by postoperative day (POD) 3, and 88.9% of the traditional cohort were discharged on POD 4 (P < 0.0001). Inpatient milligram morphine equivalents (MMEs) were smaller by 54.3% in the ERAS cohort (median MME: 154.2 versus 70.4, P < 0.0001). Additionally, ERAS patients were prescribed significantly fewer narcotics upon discharge (median MME: 337.5 versus 150.0, P < 0.0001). ERAS had a lower pain average on POD 0-3; however, this finding was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Implementing an ERAS protocol at a high-volume microvascular breast reconstruction center reduced length of stay and postoperative narcotic usage, without increasing pain or perioperative complications.

A systematic review of primary endovascular repair of the ascending aorta.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular repair of the ascending aorta is currently limited to patients at high surgical risk with aortic diseases originating above the sinotubular junction. A number of different endovascular technologies and approaches have been used, although no consensus exists regarding a standardized technique. To better understand real-world endovascular approaches to the ascending aorta, we performed a comprehensive review of the types of endovascular aortic stents and associated vascular access used in repair of the ascending aorta. METHODS: A search of the MEDLINE database was conducted from January 1, 1995, through January 31, 2017, with the search term "ascending aortic stent." Studies involving endovascular stenting in which the primary therapy was confined exclusively to the ascending aorta were included. Studies involving hybrid arch procedures and surgical replacement of the ascending aorta associated with aortic stenting were excluded. The type of aortic stent, underlying aortic disease, and surgical approach were recorded along with outcomes, need for reinterventions, and follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 46 publications that focused on primary endovascular repair of the ascending aorta were identified. Thirteen different aortic stent grafts of various designs were used in 118 total patients. The most commonly used device types were thoracic stents (n = 84 [71.2%]) along with abdominal cuffs (n = 13 [11%]) and custom-made grafts (n = 12 [10.2%]). The most commonly treated aortic disease was type A aortic dissection (n = 59 [50%]), followed by aortic pseudoaneurysm (n = 35 [29.7%]), aortic aneurysm (n = 6 [5.1%]), penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer (n = 5 [4.2%]), and acute aortic rupture (n = 3 [2.5%]). Femoral arterial access was used in 62.7% of patients (n = 74); transapical (n = 17 [14.4%]), carotid (n = 15 [12.7%]), and axillary (n = 8 [6.8%]) approaches were also used. The overall type I endoleak rate was 18.6% (n = 22), with 11 patients (9.3%) requiring reintervention. Other complications included all-cause mortality (n = 18 [15.2%]), conversions to open surgery (n = 4 [3.4%]), and cerebrovascular complications (n = 4 [3.4%]). Aorta-related mortality was 5% (n = 6), and average follow-up was 17.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the absence of a dedicated aortic stent graft for the ascending aorta, patients with a range of ascending aortic diseases are being successfully treated by endovascular technologies. For optimal outcomes, patient selection is critical to align aortic anatomy with the limited device sizing options, and it should be reserved for patients at high surgical risk.

Internal Distraction Resulted in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes for Midface Hypoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Both internal and external distraction devices have been used successfully in correcting midface hypoplasia. Although the indication for surgery and the osteotomy techniques may be similar, deciding when to use internal versus external devices has not been studied. The authors studied patient-reported outcomes with FACE-Q and functional surveys for internal and external devices for midface distraction patients. METHODS: Patients who underwent distraction advancement after Le Fort I and Le Fort III were surveyed using the FACE-Q survey and a functional survey. Equal groups of internal and external device patients were compared (n = 64). Data recorded included: sex, age, follow-up, diagnosis, operating room time, expected blood loss, length of stay, distraction length, consolidation time, and complications. RESULTS: Internal and external device groups were similar with regards to patient diagnosis, operative time, expected blood loss, distraction length but consolidation times differed (internal = 3.6 versus external = 1.1 months). For FACE-Q appearance appraisal, there were similarities in domain and scale. For the functional survey (airway/breathing, ocular/vision, occlusion/eating, speech/articulation), there was also similar scoring. However, internal device patients had superior FACE-Q scores for Quality of Life: Social Function (80.9 versus 68.9), Early Life Impact (92.9 versus 62.4), Dental Anxiety (70.2 versus 48.3), Psychological Well-being (87.8 versus 68.6); and Decision Satisfaction (81.2 versus 56.9) and Outcome Satisfaction (91.0 versus 84.7). CONCLUSIONS: Internal and external midface distraction patients had similar patient-reported outcomes for appearance and functional improvement; however, internal device patients were more satisfied with their quality of life and their decision to undergo the procedure.

Treatment of Isolated Zygomatic Arch Fracture: Improved Outcomes with External Splinting.

BACKGROUND: The various approaches to reduction and fixation of isolated displaced zygomatic arch fractures have not been well studied. The authors compared established treatment methods for zygomatic arch fractures for both aesthetic and functional outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients with isolated zygomatic arch fractures with a minimum of 6 months' follow-up were studied in five groups: group 1, intraoral approach (no fixation); group 2, temporal approach (no fixation); group 3, coronal flap plate fixation; group 4, external splint fixation; and group 5, no surgery. Perioperative complications, facial contour symmetry (aesthetic outcome), improvement in mouth opening (functional outcome), and reoperations were compared. RESULTS: Patients undergoing external splint fixation had no perioperative complications. Coronal flap plate fixation had the highest rate of perioperative complications (46 percent), with facial nerve injury (4 percent), hematoma (8 percent), and persistent hyperesthesia (8 percent). Reoperations (fat grafting or bony reconstruction) were highest with coronal flap plate fixation (23 percent) and the temporal approach (7.7 percent); external splint fixation and the intraoral approach required no reinterventions. Patients treated with external splint fixation had the largest improvement in mean interincisor mouth opening. Mean postoperative interincisor opening in decreasing order was as follows: external splint fixation (51.6 mm), coronal flap plate fixation (47.1 mm), no surgery (39.8 mm), intraoral approach (39.6 mm), and temporal approach (38.9 mm). The highest volumetric symmetry was seen in external splint fixation (97.9 percent), followed by coronal flap plate fixation (94 percent), temporal approach (76.2 percent), intraoral approach (73 percent), and no surgery (68.3 percent). CONCLUSION: For isolated zygomatic arch fracture, patients undergoing external splint fixation had the lowest risk of perioperative complications and the greatest improvement in functional and aesthetic outcomes compared with the intraoral approach (no fixation), the temporal approach (no fixation), coronal flap plate fixation, and no surgery. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.

Right Axillary Artery Cannulation for Endovascular Repair of an Acute Type A Aortic Dissection.

We present the case of a 48-year-old woman with an acute type A aortic dissection that was treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair at our institution. The patient was found to have a focal type A dissection with pericardial effusion but no tamponade physiology and no involvement of the aortic valve or root. We elected to treat the patient's type A aortic dissection with an endovascular stent because of the patient's favorable anatomy and no evidence of neurologic deficits or signs of distal malperfusion. The patient was successfully treated with an abdominal aortic cuff deployed through the axillary artery. An axillary approach was necessary because of the short length of the delivery sheath preventing a transfemoral delivery. At 2-year follow-up, the patient remains free of complications with computed tomography scan revealing complete false lumen thrombosis and a stable endovascular repair. This report demonstrates a case of acute type A aortic dissection successfully treated using thoracic endovascular aortic repair and illustrates the utility of axillary cannulation for precise deployment of stent grafts in the ascending aorta.