Single Versus Dual Surgeon Approaches to Oncoplastic Surgery: A Comparison of Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is traditionally performed using a dual surgeon (DS) approach that involves both a breast surgeon and a plastic surgeon. It is also performed using a single surgeon (SS) approach with a surgeon trained in both breast surgical oncology and plastic surgery. We sought to determine if outcomes differed between SS versus DS OPS approaches. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all OPS performed in a single health system over a 6-y period by either an SS or a DS approach. Primary outcomes were rates of positive margins and the overall complication rate; secondary outcomes were loco-regional recurrence, disease-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients were identified; 117 were SS cases and 100 were DS cases. Baseline preoperative patient characteristics were similar between the two groups as there was no difference in mean Charlson Comorbidity Index scores (P = 0.07). There was no difference in tumor stage (P = 0.09) or nodal status (P = 0.31). Rates of positive margins were not significantly different (10.9% (SS) versus 9% (DS); P = 0.81), nor were rates of complications (11.1% (SS) versus 15% (DS); P = 0.42). Rates of locoregional recurrence were also not significantly different (1.7% (SS) versus 0% (DS); P = 0.5). Disease-free survival and overall survival were not significantly different at 1-y, 3-y, and 5-y time points (P = 0.20 and P = 0.23, respectively) although follow-up time was not sufficient for definitive analysis regarding survival. CONCLUSIONS: Both SS and DS approaches to OPS have similar outcomes with regards to positive margin rates and surgical complication rates and are comparably safe.

The adoption of oncoplastic surgery: Is there a learning curve?

INTRODUCTION: Oncoplastic surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery involving partial mastectomy followed by volume displacement or replacement surgery. As the field of OPS is growing, we sought to determine if there was a learning curve to this surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients who underwent OPS over a 6-year period with a single surgeon formally trained in both Plastic Surgery and Breast Oncology. Cumulative summation analysis (CUSUM) was performed on mean operative time to generate the learning curve and learning curve phases. Outcomes were compared between phases to determine significance. RESULTS: Mean operative time decreased significantly across the 6-year period, generating three distinct learning curve phases: Learner phase (cases 1-23), Competence phase (24-73), and Mastery phase (74 and greater). The overall positive margin rate was 10.9% and there was no significant difference in rates between phases (p = 0.49). Overall complication rates, reoperation rates, and locoregional recurrence remained the same across all phases (p = 0.16; p = 0.65; p = 0.41). The rate of partial nipple loss decreased between phases (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: As with many complex operations, there does appear to be a learning curve with OPS, as the operative time and the rates of partial nipple loss decreased over time.

Practical oncoplastic surgery techniques needed for practice.

Oncoplastic breast surgery (OPS) is a form of breast conservation surgery that includes immediate breast reconstruction. OPS has previously been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for breast cancer. In a special series on Breast Reconstruction, we aimed to describe oncoplastic breast reconstruction options and the corresponding technical details. Sections were divided by descriptions of OPS specific preoperative workup, volume displacement techniques, volume replacement techniques, and postoperative considerations. In addition, to sharing expert surgical pearls gained through performing OPS procedures over the years. Innovations in breast reconstruction offer women treatment options that are both oncologically safe and aesthetically preferred. The rise in reconstructive procedures is changing how patients make decisions based on their diagnosis. The ultimate surgical decision should be determined by the patient's anatomy, patient's personal preferences, tumor characteristics, and clinical presentation in a shared decision-making fashion with a multidisciplinary team. However, with both volume displacement and volume replacement techniques, women of all breast sizes can achieve an aesthetic outcome without sacrificing oncologic resection.

Poor accessibility to consumer pricing exists for elective hernia repair surgery.

BACKGROUND: Hospital price transparency is federally mandated to improve consumer accessibility. We aimed to evaluate how hospitals were complying with these regulations for elective hernia repairs. METHODS: Searches were performed for different hospital systems in attempt to find a price for the procedure using author's own health insurance. Data collected included time to reach the cost estimate tool, time to obtain price estimates, and price ranges. With prices for inguinal and ventral hernia repairs varying across the state's medical centers. RESULTS: Fourteen medical centers across the country were included, all had a cost estimate calculator. The average success rate of obtaining a cost for inguinal hernia was 48%. Comparatively, the average success rate of obtaining a cost for ventral hernia was 12%. Of the successful searches for price, significant variation exists amongst the accessed hernia procedure cost. CONCLUSION: Despite federal mandates for hospital price transparency, online cost-estimate calculators are underperforming, thus exposing a need for more accessible cost-estimates for patients undergoing elective hernia repair.