Assessing the additional surgical risk of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction.

INTRODUCTION: There has been a sharp rise in the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy over the last decade, despite the low incidence of new primary cancers predicted for the contralateral breast. This study compares the postoperative complication rates between the diseased breast treated with mastectomy and the contralateral breast that underwent prophylactic mastectomy, followed by immediate bilateral breast implant reconstruction. We hypothesized that there will be no difference in postoperative outcomes between prophylactic and diseased groups, as the surgical approach would be comparable. METHODS: After IRB approval, a retrospective chart review identified consecutive unilateral breast cancer patients who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction between May 2008 and May 2018 at a tertiary academic medical center. A paired sample t-test and a penalized logic regression model were constructed to identify relationships between breast laterality and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1117 patients with unilateral breast cancer who underwent bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction were identified. Rates of capsular contracture and infection were significantly greater in the diseased breast, while rates of revision were significantly greater in the contralateral prophylactic breast. There were no statistically significant differences between breasts in rates of explant, skin flap necrosis or hematoma. When adjusted for confounding variables, a higher infection rate was observed in the diseased breast. CONCLUSION: This study detected significant differences in postoperative complication rates between the diseased and prophylactic breasts following bilateral mastectomy and immediate breast implant reconstruction. Postoperative complications occurred more frequently in the diseased breast compared with low rates of complications in the contralateral prophylactic breast. This information is helpful for preoperative decision making, as surgeons and patients carefully weigh the additional risks of contralateral prophylactic procedure.

Muscle Fascia Changes in Patients with Occipital Neuralgia, Headache, or Migraine.

SUMMARY: In an ongoing effort to understand the pathogenesis of occipital neuralgia/headache/migraine, it is critical to describe the anatomical/tissue changes encountered during surgery. Greater occipital nerve anatomical studies mainly focus on the greater occipital nerve course through muscle/fascial planes and interaction with the occipital vessels. However, structural soft-tissue changes have not been described in detail. Anecdotally, trapezius fascia is thickened at the greater occipital nerve trigger site. This study further investigates this observation. Patients undergoing greater occipital nerve decompression surgery were enrolled prospectively in this observational study (n = 92). Tissue changes were recorded intraoperatively. The resulting data were examined. Trapezius fascia was more than 3 mm thick and appeared fibrotic in 86 patients (94 percent), whereas semispinalis muscle appeared normal in all subjects. The greater occipital nerve was macroscopically abnormal, defined as edematous, flattened, and discolored in 29 cases (32 percent). The occipital artery interacted significantly with the greater occipital nerve in 88 percent of cases. The authors conclude that the tissue structure is abnormal in patients undergoing greater occipital nerve decompression surgery. This is the first study that describes the prevalence of thickened and fibrotic appearing trapezius fascia at the occipital trigger site, a phenomenon encountered in the vast majority of patients (94 percent). This structural anomaly has a resemblance to thickened fascial tissues seen in other nerve compression syndromes, and could be related to microtrauma/overuse or actual trauma in the head and neck region.

Patient Pain Sketches Can Predict Surgical Outcomes in Trigger-Site Deactivation Surgery for Headaches.

BACKGROUND: Patient selection for headache surgery is an important variable to ensure successful outcomes. In the authors' experience, a valuable method to visualize pain/trigger sites is to ask patients to draw their pain. The authors have found that there are pathognomonic pain patterns for each site, and typically do not operate on patients with atypical pain sketches, as they believe such patients are poor surgical candidates. However, a small subset of these atypical patients undergo surgery based on other strong clinical findings. In this study, the authors attempt to quantify this clinical experience. METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled and completed pain sketches at screening. One hundred six diagrams were analyzed/categorized by two independent, blinded reviewers as follows: (1) typical (pain over nerve distribution, expected radiation); (2) intermediate (pain over nerve distribution, atypical radiation); or (3) atypical (pain outside of normal nerve distribution, atypical radiation). Preoperative and postoperative Migraine Headache Index was compared between subgroups using unpaired t tests. RESULTS: Migraine Headache Index improvement was 73 ± 38 percent in the typical group, 78 ± 30 percent in the intermediate group, and 30 ± 40 percent in the atypical group. There was a significant difference in Migraine Headache Index between the typical and atypical groups (p = 0.03) and between the intermediate and atypical groups (p < 0.01). The chance of achieving Migraine Headache Index improvement greater than 30 percent in the atypical group was 20 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Patient pain sketches classified as atypical (facial pain, atypical pain point origin, diffuse pain) can predict poor outcomes in headache surgery. As the authors continue to develop patient selection criteria for headache surgery, patient sketches should be considered as an effective, cheap, and simple-to-interpret tool for selecting candidates for surgery.

The Efficacy of Surgical Treatment for Headaches in Patients with Prior Head or Neck Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing trigger-site deactivation surgery for headaches report a high prevalence (approximately 37 percent) of prior head or neck injury. Traditional medical treatment often fails to treat these posttraumatic patients. It is unclear whether surgery mirrors these poor outcomes. This study aims to describe the characteristics of posttraumatic headache surgery patients and compare their postoperative results to those of patients without a history of head or neck injury. METHODS: One hundred forty-two patients undergoing trigger-site deactivation surgery were prospectively enrolled. Patients were requested to complete a preoperative questionnaire on headache history, including the Migraine Headache Index and information on prior head or neck injury. Follow-up surveys were requested at approximately 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Seventy patients (49 percent) reported a history of head or neck injury, and 41 (29 percent) classified the injury as the precipitating event leading to their headache onset. Patients with a precipitating event were significantly less likely to report a family history of migraine. There was no significant difference in mean preoperative Migraine Headache Index between cohorts. At 12 months postoperatively, there was no significant difference in Migraine Headache Index reduction between groups. The proportion of patients who experienced at least a 50 and 80 percent improvement in Migraine Headache Index per group, respectively, was 83 and 67 percent (atraumatic), 76 and 68 percent (posttraumatic), and 71 and 63 percent (precipitating event). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that surgical outcomes in posttraumatic headache patients are comparable to those without injury. Trigger-site deactivation surgery candidates with a history of injury can therefore expect similar outcomes as reported for patients overall. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Migraine Surgery at the Frontal Trigger Site: An Analysis of Intraoperative Anatomy.

BACKGROUND: The development of migraine headaches may involve the entrapment of peripheral craniofacial nerves at specific sites. Cadaveric studies in the general population have confirmed potential compression points of the supraorbital and supratrochlear nerves at the frontal trigger site. The authors' aim was to describe the intraoperative anatomy of the supraorbital and supratrochlear nerves at the level of the supraorbital bony rim in patients undergoing frontal migraine surgery and to investigate associated pain. METHODS: PATIENTS: scheduled for frontal-site surgery were enrolled prospectively. The senior author (W.G.A.) evaluated intraoperative anatomy and recorded variables using a detailed form and operative report. The resulting data were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen sites among 61 patients were included. The supraorbital nerve traversed a notch in 49 percent, a foramen in 41 percent, a notch plus a foramen in 9.3 percent, and neither a notch nor a foramen in one site. The senior author noted macroscopic nerve compression at 74 percent of sites. Reasons included a tight foramen in 24 percent, a notch with a tight band in 34 percent, and supraorbital and supratrochlear nerves emerging by means of the same notch in 7.6 percent or by means of the same foramen in 4.2 percent. Preoperative pain at a site was significantly associated with nerve compression by a foramen. CONCLUSIONS: The intraoperative anatomy and cause of nerve compression at the frontal trigger site vary greatly among patients. The authors report a supraorbital nerve foramen prevalence of 50.3 percent, which is greater than in previous cadaver studies of the general population. Lastly, the presence of pain at a specific site is associated with macroscopic nerve compression.

Prepectoral Direct-to-Implant Breast Reconstruction: Safety Outcome Endpoints and Delineation of Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Continued evolution of implant-based breast reconstruction involves immediate placement of the implant above the pectoralis muscle. The shift to prepectoral breast reconstruction is driven by goals of decreasing morbidity such as breast animation deformity, range-of-motion problems, and pain, and is made possible by improvements in mastectomy skin flap viability. To define clinical factors to guide patient selection for direct-to-implant prepectoral implant reconstruction, this study compares safety endpoints and risk factors between prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction cohorts. The authors hypothesized that prepectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent prepectoral and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, performed by a team of five surgical oncologists and two plastic surgeons. Univariate analysis compared patient characteristics between cohorts. A penalized logistic regression model was constructed to identify relationships between postoperative complications and covariate risk factors. RESULTS: A cohort of 114 prepectoral direct-to-implant patients was compared with 142 subpectoral direct-to-implant patients. The results of the penalized regression model demonstrated equivalence in safety metrics between prepectoral direct-to-implant and subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction, including seroma (p = 0.0883), cancer recurrence (p = 0.876), explantation (p = 0.992), capsular contracture (p = 0.158), mastectomy skin flap necrosis (p = 0.769), infection (p = 0.523), hematoma (p = 0.228), and revision (p = 0.122). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction is a safe alternative to subpectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction. Given the low morbidity and elimination of animation deformity, prepectoral direct-to-implant reconstruction should be considered when the mastectomy skin flap is robust. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Evaluation of capsular contracture following immediate prepectoral versus subpectoral direct-to-implant breast reconstruction.

Capsular contracture is a common adverse outcome following implant breast reconstruction, often associated with radiation treatment. The authors hypothesize that muscle fibrosis is the main contributor of breast reconstruction contracture after radiation. Retrospective chart review identified patients that underwent DTI reconstruction with pre-or post-operative breast irradiation. Signs of capsular contracture were assessed using clinic notes and independent graders reviewing two-dimensional images and anatomic landmarks. Capsular contracture rate was greater in the subpectoral vs. prepectoral group (n = 28, 51.8% vs. n = 12, 30.0%, p = 0.02). When compared to prepectoral DTI reconstruction in irradiated patients, subpectoral implant placement was nearly 4 times as likely to result in capsular contracture (p < 0.01). Rates of explantation, infection, tissue necrosis, and hematoma were comparable between groups. We also found that when subpectoral patients present with breast contracture, chemoparalysis of the muscle alone can resolve breast asymmetry, corroborating that muscle is a key contributor to breast contracture. As prepectoral breast reconstruction is gaining popularity, there have been questions regarding outcome following radiation treatment. This study suggest that prepectoral breast reconstruction is safe in an irradiated patient population, and in fact compares favorably with regard to breast contracture.