Reconstruction of the Irradiated Breast: A National Claims-Based Assessment of Postoperative Morbidity
Chetta, M et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: April 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 4 - p 783–792
Background: Implant-based reconstruction rates have risen among irradiation-treated breast cancer patients in the United States. This study aims to assess the morbidity associated with various breast reconstruction techniques in irradiated patients.
Methods: From the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, the authors selected breast cancer patients who had undergone mastectomy, irradiation, and breast reconstruction from 2009 to 2012. Demographic and clinical treatment data, including data on the timing of irradiation relative to breast reconstruction were recorded. Complications and failures after implant and autologous reconstruction were also recorded. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed with postoperative complications as the dependent variable and patient demographic and clinical variables as independent variables.
Results: Four thousand seven hundred eighty-one irradiated patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected. A majority of the patients [n = 3846 (80 percent)] underwent reconstruction with implants. Overall complication rates were 45.3 percent and 30.8 percent for patients with implant and autologous reconstruction, respectively. Failure of reconstruction occurred in 29.4 percent of patients with implant reconstruction compared with 4.3 percent of patients with autologous reconstruction. In multivariable logistic regression, irradiated patients with implant reconstruction had two times the odds of having any complication and 11 times the odds of failure relative to patients with autologous reconstruction.
Conclusions: Implant-based breast reconstruction in the irradiated patient, although popular, is associated with significant morbidity. Failures of reconstruction with implants in these patients approach 30 percent in the short term, suggesting a need for careful shared decision-making, with full disclosure of the potential morbidity.
Thursday, 13 April 2017
Versatility of the Profunda Artery Perforator Flap: Creative Uses in Breast Reconstruction
Versatility of the Profunda Artery Perforator Flap: Creative Uses in Breast Reconstruction
Haddock, N et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 606e–612e
Background: Flaps based on the profunda artery perforators were first used for reconstruction of pressure sores, burn contractures, and extremity wounds. Recently, a revised profunda artery perforator flap was introduced for breast reconstruction. However, the flap is rarely used despite interesting reports on its use. The authors present their experience with the profunda artery perforator flap, describing its versatile applications in breast reconstruction.
Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of all patients of the lead author who underwent breast reconstruction with profunda artery perforator flaps before January of 2015. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. Results: Seventy-three consecutive profunda artery perforator flaps were used to reconstruct 71 breasts. In 21 breasts, a profunda artery perforator flap was used in conjunction with another flap—with a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (n = 18), a superior gluteal artery perforator flap (n = 1), or as stacked profunda artery perforator flaps (n = 2). The flap failure rate was 2.7 percent. There was one case of clinically apparent fat necrosis. There were no other major flap complications. Donor-site complications included cellulitis in two thighs (2.7 percent) and minor wound dehiscence in six thighs (8.2 percent). All donor-site complications healed satisfactorily by secondary intention without any additional procedures.
Conclusions: The profunda artery perforator flap is a safe and versatile option for breast reconstruction. It can be combined with other flaps when additional volume or skin requirements are present. Flap and donor-site complications are comparable to other free tissue breast reconstruction options.
Haddock, N et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 606e–612e
Background: Flaps based on the profunda artery perforators were first used for reconstruction of pressure sores, burn contractures, and extremity wounds. Recently, a revised profunda artery perforator flap was introduced for breast reconstruction. However, the flap is rarely used despite interesting reports on its use. The authors present their experience with the profunda artery perforator flap, describing its versatile applications in breast reconstruction.
Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective review of all patients of the lead author who underwent breast reconstruction with profunda artery perforator flaps before January of 2015. Patient demographics, perioperative data, and postoperative complications were recorded and analyzed. Results: Seventy-three consecutive profunda artery perforator flaps were used to reconstruct 71 breasts. In 21 breasts, a profunda artery perforator flap was used in conjunction with another flap—with a deep inferior epigastric perforator flap (n = 18), a superior gluteal artery perforator flap (n = 1), or as stacked profunda artery perforator flaps (n = 2). The flap failure rate was 2.7 percent. There was one case of clinically apparent fat necrosis. There were no other major flap complications. Donor-site complications included cellulitis in two thighs (2.7 percent) and minor wound dehiscence in six thighs (8.2 percent). All donor-site complications healed satisfactorily by secondary intention without any additional procedures.
Conclusions: The profunda artery perforator flap is a safe and versatile option for breast reconstruction. It can be combined with other flaps when additional volume or skin requirements are present. Flap and donor-site complications are comparable to other free tissue breast reconstruction options.
Molecular Profiling Using Breast Cancer Subtype to Plan for Breast Reconstruction
Molecular Profiling Using Breast Cancer Subtype to Plan for Breast Reconstruction
Sandberg, L J et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 586e–596e
Background: Molecular profiling using breast cancer subtype has an increasing role in the multidisciplinary care of the breast cancer patient. The authors sought to determine the role of breast cancer subtyping in breast reconstruction and specifically whether breast cancer subtyping can determine the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy and predict recurrence-free survival to plan for the timing and technique of breast reconstruction.
Methods: The authors reviewed prospectively collected data from 1931 reconstructed breasts in breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy between November of 1999 and December of 2012. Reconstructed breasts were grouped by breast cancer subtype and examined for covariates predictive of recurrence-free survival and need for postmastectomy radiation therapy.
Results: Of the reconstructed breasts, 753 (39 percent) were luminal A, 538 (27.9 percent) were luminal B, 224 (11.6 percent) were luminal HER2, 143 (7.4 percent) were HER2-enriched, and 267 (13.8 percent) were triple-negative breast cancer. Postmastectomy radiation therapy was delivered in 69 HER2-enriched patients (48.3 percent), 94 luminal HER2 patients (42 percent), 200 luminal B patients (37.2 percent), 99 triple-negative breast cancer patients (37.1 percent), and 222 luminal A patients (29.5 percent) (p < 0.0001). Luminal A cases had better recurrence-free survival than HER2-enriched cases, and triple-negative breast cancer cases had worse recurrence-free survival than HER2-enriched cases. Luminal B and luminal HER2 cases had recurrence-free survival similar to that for HER2-enriched cases. Luminal A subtype was associated with the best recurrence-free survival. Subtyping may have improved the breast surgery planning for 33.1 percent of delayed reconstructions that did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy and 37 percent of immediate reconstructions that did require postmastectomy radiation therapy.
Conclusion: This study is the first publication in the literature to evaluate breast cancer subtype to stratify risk for decision making in breast reconstruction.
Sandberg, L J et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 586e–596e
Background: Molecular profiling using breast cancer subtype has an increasing role in the multidisciplinary care of the breast cancer patient. The authors sought to determine the role of breast cancer subtyping in breast reconstruction and specifically whether breast cancer subtyping can determine the need for postmastectomy radiation therapy and predict recurrence-free survival to plan for the timing and technique of breast reconstruction.
Methods: The authors reviewed prospectively collected data from 1931 reconstructed breasts in breast cancer patients who underwent mastectomy between November of 1999 and December of 2012. Reconstructed breasts were grouped by breast cancer subtype and examined for covariates predictive of recurrence-free survival and need for postmastectomy radiation therapy.
Results: Of the reconstructed breasts, 753 (39 percent) were luminal A, 538 (27.9 percent) were luminal B, 224 (11.6 percent) were luminal HER2, 143 (7.4 percent) were HER2-enriched, and 267 (13.8 percent) were triple-negative breast cancer. Postmastectomy radiation therapy was delivered in 69 HER2-enriched patients (48.3 percent), 94 luminal HER2 patients (42 percent), 200 luminal B patients (37.2 percent), 99 triple-negative breast cancer patients (37.1 percent), and 222 luminal A patients (29.5 percent) (p < 0.0001). Luminal A cases had better recurrence-free survival than HER2-enriched cases, and triple-negative breast cancer cases had worse recurrence-free survival than HER2-enriched cases. Luminal B and luminal HER2 cases had recurrence-free survival similar to that for HER2-enriched cases. Luminal A subtype was associated with the best recurrence-free survival. Subtyping may have improved the breast surgery planning for 33.1 percent of delayed reconstructions that did not require postmastectomy radiation therapy and 37 percent of immediate reconstructions that did require postmastectomy radiation therapy.
Conclusion: This study is the first publication in the literature to evaluate breast cancer subtype to stratify risk for decision making in breast reconstruction.
Laser interstitial thermotherapy application for breast surgery: Current situation and new trends
Laser interstitial thermotherapy application for breast surgery: Current situation and new trends
Kerbage,Y et al
The Breast: June 2017Volume 33, Pages 145–152
While breast specialists debate on therapeutic de-escalation in breast cancer, the treatment of benign lesions is also discussed in relation to new percutaneous ablation techniques. The purpose of these innovations is to minimize potential morbidity. Laser Interstitial ThermoTherapy (LITT) is an option for the ablation of targeted nodules. This review evaluated the scientific publications investigating the LITT approach in malignant and benign breast disease. Three preclinical studies and eight clinical studies (2 studies including fibroadenomas and 6 studies including breast cancers) were reviewed.
Kerbage,Y et al
The Breast: June 2017Volume 33, Pages 145–152
While breast specialists debate on therapeutic de-escalation in breast cancer, the treatment of benign lesions is also discussed in relation to new percutaneous ablation techniques. The purpose of these innovations is to minimize potential morbidity. Laser Interstitial ThermoTherapy (LITT) is an option for the ablation of targeted nodules. This review evaluated the scientific publications investigating the LITT approach in malignant and benign breast disease. Three preclinical studies and eight clinical studies (2 studies including fibroadenomas and 6 studies including breast cancers) were reviewed.
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
Improved Recovery Experience Achieved for Women Undergoing Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Model
Improved Recovery Experience Achieved for Women Undergoing Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction Using an Enhanced Recovery after Surgery Model
Dumestre, D et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 550–559
Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery was compared with traditional recovery after surgery for postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction.
Methods: Length of stay, emergency room visits, and complications within 30 days of surgery were compared among three groups: traditional recovery after surgery, transition (some elements of enhanced recovery protocol, not transitioned to outpatient care), and enhanced recovery after surgery (day surgery, provided with standardized perioperative education and multimodal analgesia). Prospective data collection allowed quality-of-recovery assessment using a validated questionnaire for enhanced recovery/transition groups. Results were statistically analyzed (analysis of variance/chi-square).
Results: The traditional recovery, transition, and enhanced recovery cohorts comprised 29, 11, and 29 patients, respectively. No significant differences were present regarding age, smoking status, preoperative radiation, single stage direct-to-implant versus tissue expander, bilateral versus unilateral surgery, or immediate versus delayed reconstruction among groups. Average length of stay was 1.6 nights in both the traditional recovery and transition groups, compared with 0 nights in the enhanced recovery group (p < 0.001). Enhanced recovery patients had less severe pain (p = 0.02) and nausea (p = 0.01), and better enjoyed their food (p = 0.0002) and felt more rested (p = 0.02) than their transition counterparts. There were no differences in the number of emergency room visits among the three groups (p = 0.88). There was no difference in the rate of hematoma (p = 0.36), infection requiring intravenous antibiotics (p = 0.36), or infection requiring explantation (p = 0.36) among the three groups. Conclusion: An enhanced recovery protocol for alloplastic breast reconstruction treated patients safely, with improved patient satisfaction and same-day discharge and with no increase in complications.
Dumestre, D et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 550–559
Background: Enhanced recovery after surgery was compared with traditional recovery after surgery for postmastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction.
Methods: Length of stay, emergency room visits, and complications within 30 days of surgery were compared among three groups: traditional recovery after surgery, transition (some elements of enhanced recovery protocol, not transitioned to outpatient care), and enhanced recovery after surgery (day surgery, provided with standardized perioperative education and multimodal analgesia). Prospective data collection allowed quality-of-recovery assessment using a validated questionnaire for enhanced recovery/transition groups. Results were statistically analyzed (analysis of variance/chi-square).
Results: The traditional recovery, transition, and enhanced recovery cohorts comprised 29, 11, and 29 patients, respectively. No significant differences were present regarding age, smoking status, preoperative radiation, single stage direct-to-implant versus tissue expander, bilateral versus unilateral surgery, or immediate versus delayed reconstruction among groups. Average length of stay was 1.6 nights in both the traditional recovery and transition groups, compared with 0 nights in the enhanced recovery group (p < 0.001). Enhanced recovery patients had less severe pain (p = 0.02) and nausea (p = 0.01), and better enjoyed their food (p = 0.0002) and felt more rested (p = 0.02) than their transition counterparts. There were no differences in the number of emergency room visits among the three groups (p = 0.88). There was no difference in the rate of hematoma (p = 0.36), infection requiring intravenous antibiotics (p = 0.36), or infection requiring explantation (p = 0.36) among the three groups. Conclusion: An enhanced recovery protocol for alloplastic breast reconstruction treated patients safely, with improved patient satisfaction and same-day discharge and with no increase in complications.
Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Intraoperative Comparison of Anatomical versus Round Implants in Breast Augmentation: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Hidalgo, DA. Weinstein, AL.
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 587–596
Background: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation.
Methods: Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases.
Results: No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases. Conclusions: This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation.
Hidalgo, DA. Weinstein, AL.
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 587–596
Background: The purpose of this randomized controlled trial was to determine whether anatomical implants are aesthetically superior to round implants in breast augmentation.
Methods: Seventy-five patients undergoing primary breast augmentation had a round silicone implant of optimal volume, projection, and diameter placed in one breast and an anatomical silicone device of similar volume and optimal shape placed in the other. After intraoperative photographs were taken, the anatomical device was replaced by a round implant to complete the procedure. A survey designed to measure breast aesthetics was administered to 10 plastic surgeon and 10 lay reviewers for blind evaluation of the 75 cases.
Results: No observable difference in breast aesthetics between anatomical and round implants was reported by plastic surgeons in 43.6 percent or by lay individuals in 29.2 percent of cases. When a difference was perceived, neither plastic surgeons nor lay individuals preferred the anatomical side more often than the round side. Plastic surgeons judged the anatomical side superior in 51.1 percent of cases and the round side superior in 48.9 percent of cases (p = 0.496). Lay individuals judged the anatomical side superior in 46.7 percent of cases and the round side superior in 53.3 percent (p = 0.140). Plastic surgeons identified implant shape correctly in only 26.5 percent of cases. Conclusions: This study provides high-level evidence supporting no aesthetic superiority of anatomical over round implants. Given that anatomical implants have important and unique disadvantages, a lack of proven aesthetic superiority argues against their continued use in breast augmentation.
Comparison of Different Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: The 50/50 Study
Comparison of Different Acellular Dermal Matrices in Breast Reconstruction: The 50/50 Study
Pittman, T et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 521–528
Background: Acellular dermal matrix has enjoyed extensive use in primary and secondary alloplastic breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. The objective of this study was to examine clinical outcomes between available acellular dermal matrix products: DermACELL (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, Va.) and AlloDerm Ready To Use (LifeCell Corp., Branchburg, N.J.).
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on 58 consecutive patients (100 breasts) reconstructed with either DermACELL (n = 30 patients; 50 breasts) or AlloDerm Ready To Use (n = 28 patients; 50 breasts). The mastectomies were performed by three different breast surgeons. All reconstructions were performed by the same plastic surgeon (T.A.P.). Statistical analysis was performed by means of Fisher’s exact test.
Results: Differences in the average age, body mass index, percentage having neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or breast irradiation, and numbers of therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomies between the two groups were not statistically significant (p < 0.05). Complications in both cohorts of patients were clinically recorded for 90 days after immediate reconstruction. When comparing outcomes, patients in the DermACELL group had a significantly lower incidence of “red breast syndrome” (0 percent versus 26 percent; p = 0.0001) and fewer days before drain removal (15.8 days versus 20.6 days; p = 0.017). No significant differences were seen in terms of seroma, hematoma, delayed healing, infection, flap necrosis, or explantation.
Conclusion: Patients reconstructed with DermACELL as compared with AlloDerm Ready To Use have significantly decreased number of days to drain removal and red breast syndrome and equivalent rates of other complications, including seroma, infection, flap necrosis, and explantation.
Pittman, T et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: March 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 3 - p 521–528
Background: Acellular dermal matrix has enjoyed extensive use in primary and secondary alloplastic breast aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. The objective of this study was to examine clinical outcomes between available acellular dermal matrix products: DermACELL (LifeNet Health, Virginia Beach, Va.) and AlloDerm Ready To Use (LifeCell Corp., Branchburg, N.J.).
Methods: A retrospective chart review was performed on 58 consecutive patients (100 breasts) reconstructed with either DermACELL (n = 30 patients; 50 breasts) or AlloDerm Ready To Use (n = 28 patients; 50 breasts). The mastectomies were performed by three different breast surgeons. All reconstructions were performed by the same plastic surgeon (T.A.P.). Statistical analysis was performed by means of Fisher’s exact test.
Results: Differences in the average age, body mass index, percentage having neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy or breast irradiation, and numbers of therapeutic and prophylactic mastectomies between the two groups were not statistically significant (p < 0.05). Complications in both cohorts of patients were clinically recorded for 90 days after immediate reconstruction. When comparing outcomes, patients in the DermACELL group had a significantly lower incidence of “red breast syndrome” (0 percent versus 26 percent; p = 0.0001) and fewer days before drain removal (15.8 days versus 20.6 days; p = 0.017). No significant differences were seen in terms of seroma, hematoma, delayed healing, infection, flap necrosis, or explantation.
Conclusion: Patients reconstructed with DermACELL as compared with AlloDerm Ready To Use have significantly decreased number of days to drain removal and red breast syndrome and equivalent rates of other complications, including seroma, infection, flap necrosis, and explantation.
Feasibility of magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer
Feasibility of magnetic marker localisation for non-palpable breast cancer
Schermers B et al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 50–56
Accurate tumour localisation is essential for breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable tumours. Current localisation technologies are associated with disadvantages such as logistical challenges and migration issues (wire guided localisation) or legislative complexities and high administrative burden (radioactive localisation). We present MAgnetic MArker LOCalisation (MaMaLoc), a novel technology that aims to overcome these disadvantages using a magnetic marker and a magnetic detection probe. This feasibility study reports on the first experience with this new technology for breast cancer localisation.
Schermers B et al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 50–56
Accurate tumour localisation is essential for breast-conserving surgery of non-palpable tumours. Current localisation technologies are associated with disadvantages such as logistical challenges and migration issues (wire guided localisation) or legislative complexities and high administrative burden (radioactive localisation). We present MAgnetic MArker LOCalisation (MaMaLoc), a novel technology that aims to overcome these disadvantages using a magnetic marker and a magnetic detection probe. This feasibility study reports on the first experience with this new technology for breast cancer localisation.
Axillary reverse mapping in N0 patients requiring sentinel lymph node biopsy – A systematic review of the literature and necessity of a randomised study
Axillary reverse mapping in N0 patients requiring sentinel lymph node biopsy – A systematic review of the literature and necessity of a randomised study
Parks RM, Cheung KL
The Breast, June 2017 Volume 33, Pages 57–70
Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) is a technique to map and preserve arm lymphatics which may be damaged during surgery, resulting in lymphoedema.This work systematically reviews the incidence of lymphoedema following sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) + ARM, compared to SLNB alone, for clinically node negative disease, as well as recurrence rate, other morbidity and the feasibility and difficulties of ARM.
Parks RM, Cheung KL
The Breast, June 2017 Volume 33, Pages 57–70
Axillary reverse mapping (ARM) is a technique to map and preserve arm lymphatics which may be damaged during surgery, resulting in lymphoedema.This work systematically reviews the incidence of lymphoedema following sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) + ARM, compared to SLNB alone, for clinically node negative disease, as well as recurrence rate, other morbidity and the feasibility and difficulties of ARM.
Surgeon performed continuous intraoperative ultrasound guidance decreases re-excisions and mastectomy rates in breast cancer
Surgeon performed continuous intraoperative ultrasound guidance decreases re-excisions and mastectomy rates in breast cancer
Cakmaket KG al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 23–28
Intraoperative ultrasound guided (IUG) breast conserving surgery (BCS) is being increasingly embraced by breast surgeons worldwide. We aimed to compare the efficacy of IUG-BCS for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer with respect to margin status, re-excision rate, tissue sacrifice and cost-time analysis.
Cakmaket KG al
The Breast, June 2017Volume 33, Pages 23–28
Intraoperative ultrasound guided (IUG) breast conserving surgery (BCS) is being increasingly embraced by breast surgeons worldwide. We aimed to compare the efficacy of IUG-BCS for palpable and nonpalpable breast cancer with respect to margin status, re-excision rate, tissue sacrifice and cost-time analysis.
Multidetector CT improving surgical outcomes in breast cancer (MISO-BC): A randomised controlled trial
Multidetector CT improving surgical outcomes in breast cancer (MISO-BC): A randomised controlled trial
Cox J et al
The Breast, April 2017 Volume 32, Pages 217–224
CT scan-guided care did not result in a change in the number of patients requiring a second operation; similar numbers of patients needed further axillary surgery in both groups. New diagnostic imaging technologies regularly enter NHS centres. It is important these are evaluated rigorously before becoming routine care.
Cox J et al
The Breast, April 2017 Volume 32, Pages 217–224
CT scan-guided care did not result in a change in the number of patients requiring a second operation; similar numbers of patients needed further axillary surgery in both groups. New diagnostic imaging technologies regularly enter NHS centres. It is important these are evaluated rigorously before becoming routine care.
Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgeries in preventing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
Cost-effectiveness of risk-reducing surgeries in preventing hereditary breast and ovarian cancer
Schrauder MG et al
The Breast, April 2017Volume 32, Pages 186–191
Risk-reducing surgeries are a feasible option for mitigating the risk in individuals with inherited susceptibility to cancer, but are the procedures cost-effective in the current health-care system in Germany? This study compared the health-care costs for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and risk-reducing (bilateral) salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) with cancer treatment costs that could potentially be prevented.
Schrauder MG et al
The Breast, April 2017Volume 32, Pages 186–191
Risk-reducing surgeries are a feasible option for mitigating the risk in individuals with inherited susceptibility to cancer, but are the procedures cost-effective in the current health-care system in Germany? This study compared the health-care costs for bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy (BRRM) and risk-reducing (bilateral) salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) with cancer treatment costs that could potentially be prevented.
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Rationale, Indications, and Preliminary Results
Prepectoral Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Rationale, Indications, and Preliminary Results
Sigalove, S et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 287–294
Summary: Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently performed with placement of the implant in a subpectoral pocket beneath the pectoralis major muscle, by means of the dual-plane approach. Although the safety and breast aesthetics of this approach are well recognized, it is not without concerns. Animation deformities and accompanying patient discomfort, which are direct consequences of muscle elevation, can be severe in some patients. Moving the implant prepectorally may eliminate these concerns. For a successful prepectoral approach, the authors advocate use of their bioengineered breast concept, which was detailed in a previous publication. In this report, the authors discuss the rationale for prepectoral implant reconstruction, its indications/contraindications, and preliminary results from over 350 reconstructions.
Sigalove, S et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 287–294
Summary: Implant-based breast reconstruction is currently performed with placement of the implant in a subpectoral pocket beneath the pectoralis major muscle, by means of the dual-plane approach. Although the safety and breast aesthetics of this approach are well recognized, it is not without concerns. Animation deformities and accompanying patient discomfort, which are direct consequences of muscle elevation, can be severe in some patients. Moving the implant prepectorally may eliminate these concerns. For a successful prepectoral approach, the authors advocate use of their bioengineered breast concept, which was detailed in a previous publication. In this report, the authors discuss the rationale for prepectoral implant reconstruction, its indications/contraindications, and preliminary results from over 350 reconstructions.
Outcome Evaluation after 2023 Nipple-Sparing Mastectomies: Our Experience
Outcome Evaluation after 2023 Nipple-Sparing Mastectomies: Our Experience
De Vita, R et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 335e–347e
Background: Although quadrantectomy and lumpectomy help diminish the psychological and physical devastation inflicted, mastectomy is still elected in 20 to 30 percent of breast cancers. Although initially inciting controversy over heightened risk of local recurrences, recent studies maintain that nipple-sparing mastectomy can be used in any patient qualifying for total mastectomy and also improves aesthetic and psychologic outcomes. The manner in which mastectomy influences reconstructive implant outcomes has been documented by several groups. This report details the authors’ experience performing nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction, focusing attention on patient characteristics and aspects of surgical mastectomy that influence reconstruction outcomes. The aim of the study was to examine various issues, such as surgical access, mode of tissue dissection, and flap thickness, clearly linked to development of complications and poor results. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted, analyzing patients with breast cancer. An external three-surgeon panel served to generate average scores for predefined parameters. Based on total scores, outcomes were designated excellent, good, moderate, or poor. Results: The authors’ cohort included 1647 patients. Overall, 2023 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed, including bilateral procedures in 376 patients. After a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, the authors’ cohort was stratified by scored outcomes. Significant impact of body mass index, skin incision, flap thickness, and grade of ptosis has been demonstrated. Conclusions: The authors’ data suggest that proper patient selection and well-executed operations are mandatory to limit complications. They also indicate that aesthetic outcome is clearly dependent on surgical proficiency and some patient characteristics.
De Vita, R et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 335e–347e
Background: Although quadrantectomy and lumpectomy help diminish the psychological and physical devastation inflicted, mastectomy is still elected in 20 to 30 percent of breast cancers. Although initially inciting controversy over heightened risk of local recurrences, recent studies maintain that nipple-sparing mastectomy can be used in any patient qualifying for total mastectomy and also improves aesthetic and psychologic outcomes. The manner in which mastectomy influences reconstructive implant outcomes has been documented by several groups. This report details the authors’ experience performing nipple-sparing mastectomy with immediate implant-based breast reconstruction, focusing attention on patient characteristics and aspects of surgical mastectomy that influence reconstruction outcomes. The aim of the study was to examine various issues, such as surgical access, mode of tissue dissection, and flap thickness, clearly linked to development of complications and poor results. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted, analyzing patients with breast cancer. An external three-surgeon panel served to generate average scores for predefined parameters. Based on total scores, outcomes were designated excellent, good, moderate, or poor. Results: The authors’ cohort included 1647 patients. Overall, 2023 nipple-sparing mastectomies were performed, including bilateral procedures in 376 patients. After a minimum follow-up period of 12 months, the authors’ cohort was stratified by scored outcomes. Significant impact of body mass index, skin incision, flap thickness, and grade of ptosis has been demonstrated. Conclusions: The authors’ data suggest that proper patient selection and well-executed operations are mandatory to limit complications. They also indicate that aesthetic outcome is clearly dependent on surgical proficiency and some patient characteristics.
Impact of selective use of breast MRI on surgical decision-making in women with newly diagnosed operable breast cancer
Impact of selective use of breast MRI on surgical decision-making in women with newly diagnosed operable breast cancer
Brennan, Meagan E. et al.
This study evaluated the impact of breast MRI on surgical planning in selected cases of breast malignancy (invasive cancer or DCIS). MRI was used when there was ambiguity on clinical and/or conventional imaging assessment.
Brennan, Meagan E. et al.
The Breast , Volume 32 , 135 - 143
This study evaluated the impact of breast MRI on surgical planning in selected cases of breast malignancy (invasive cancer or DCIS). MRI was used when there was ambiguity on clinical and/or conventional imaging assessment.
An Oncoplastic Breast Augmentation Technique for Immediate Partial Breast Reconstruction following Breast Conservation
An Oncoplastic Breast Augmentation Technique for Immediate Partial Breast Reconstruction following Breast Conservation
Barnea, Y et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 348e–357e
Background: Patients with a small breast volume and a relative large lumpectomy volume are at risk of developing severe breast deformity and asymmetry following breast conservation, presenting a unique surgical challenge. Methods: A series of patients undergoing immediate reconstruction by means of an oncoplastic breast augmentation technique following breast conservation are described. The technique includes local tissue rearrangement and bilateral subpectoral breast augmentation with implants of different sizes and shapes, immediately after lumpectomy for a malignant tumor. Results: Twenty-one consecutive patients underwent the oncoplastic breast augmentation technique (mean follow-up, 23 months; range, 12 to 48 months). Three patients (14.3 percent) had tumor-positive surgical margins. Postoperative complications included grade III/IV capsular contracture in five patients (23.8 percent) and breast infection in two patients (10 percent). All patients received postoperative radiation therapy. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated at least 6 months after radiation therapy, and it was favorable according to the reported high patient satisfaction (81 percent) and independent observers’ evaluation scores (76 percent). Conclusions: The oncoplastic breast augmentation technique described in this article is an acceptable option in small-breasted patients with a relatively large lumpectomy volume who elect to undergo breast conservation. This technique allows conservation of the affected breast and minimizes potential breast deformation and asymmetry following radiation therapy.
Barnea, Y et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 348e–357e
Background: Patients with a small breast volume and a relative large lumpectomy volume are at risk of developing severe breast deformity and asymmetry following breast conservation, presenting a unique surgical challenge. Methods: A series of patients undergoing immediate reconstruction by means of an oncoplastic breast augmentation technique following breast conservation are described. The technique includes local tissue rearrangement and bilateral subpectoral breast augmentation with implants of different sizes and shapes, immediately after lumpectomy for a malignant tumor. Results: Twenty-one consecutive patients underwent the oncoplastic breast augmentation technique (mean follow-up, 23 months; range, 12 to 48 months). Three patients (14.3 percent) had tumor-positive surgical margins. Postoperative complications included grade III/IV capsular contracture in five patients (23.8 percent) and breast infection in two patients (10 percent). All patients received postoperative radiation therapy. The cosmetic outcome was evaluated at least 6 months after radiation therapy, and it was favorable according to the reported high patient satisfaction (81 percent) and independent observers’ evaluation scores (76 percent). Conclusions: The oncoplastic breast augmentation technique described in this article is an acceptable option in small-breasted patients with a relatively large lumpectomy volume who elect to undergo breast conservation. This technique allows conservation of the affected breast and minimizes potential breast deformation and asymmetry following radiation therapy.
The Evolution of Surgical Simulation: The Current State and Future Avenues for Plastic Surgery Education
The Evolution of Surgical Simulation: The Current State and Future Avenues for Plastic Surgery Education
Kazan, R et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 533e–543e
Summary: Alongside the ongoing evolution of surgical training toward a competency-based paradigm has come the need to reevaluate the role of surgical simulation in residency. Simulators offer the ability for trainees to acquire specific skills and for educators to objectively assess the progressive development of these skills. In this article, the authors discuss the historical evolution of surgical simulation, with a particular focus on its past and present role in plastic surgery education. The authors also discuss the future steps required to further advance plastic surgery simulation in an effort to continue to train highly competent plastic surgery graduates.
Kazan, R et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 533e–543e
Why Some Mastectomy Patients Opt to Undergo Delayed Breast Reconstruction: Results of a Long-Term Prospective Study
Why Some Mastectomy Patients Opt to Undergo Delayed Breast Reconstruction: Results of a Long-Term Prospective Study
Metcalfe, K A.et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 267–275
Background: Delayed breast reconstruction is an option for women who have undergone mastectomy; however, uptake is low. The purpose of this study was to identify premastectomy and postmastectomy demographic, clinical, and psychosocial predictors of uptake of delayed breast reconstruction in the long-term survivorship period.
Methods: This was a prospective longitudinal survey study of mastectomy patients in which a repeated measures design was used to evaluate uptake of delayed breast reconstruction. Demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables were collected before mastectomy and 1 year after mastectomy. Information regarding uptake of delayed breast reconstruction was collected at approximately 6 years after mastectomy. A predictive model was designed using a multivariate logistic regression model and Akiake information criterion stepwise algorithm.
Results: Ninety-six mastectomy patients were followed from before mastectomy to 75.2 months after mastectomy, and 35 women (36.5 percent) underwent delayed breast reconstruction. Women who elected for delayed breast reconstruction experienced worsening of body concerns from before mastectomy to 1 year after mastectomy, compared with women who did not elect to undergo delayed breast reconstruction (p = 0.03). Mean scores for psychological distress were significantly worse both before mastectomy and 1 year after mastectomy in women who went on to undergo delayed breast reconstruction compared with those who did not undergo delayed breast reconstruction (p = 0.034 and p = 0.022, respectively). A predictive model for the uptake of delayed breast reconstruction was developed using demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 85 percent, indicating good precision. Conclusions: Women who are experiencing higher levels of distress, anxiety, and body concerns both before and after mastectomy appear to be significantly likely to select delayed breast reconstruction. This may have implications for postreconstruction satisfaction and psychosocial functioning.
Metcalfe, K A.et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery: February 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 2 - p 267–275
Background: Delayed breast reconstruction is an option for women who have undergone mastectomy; however, uptake is low. The purpose of this study was to identify premastectomy and postmastectomy demographic, clinical, and psychosocial predictors of uptake of delayed breast reconstruction in the long-term survivorship period.
Methods: This was a prospective longitudinal survey study of mastectomy patients in which a repeated measures design was used to evaluate uptake of delayed breast reconstruction. Demographic, clinical, and psychosocial variables were collected before mastectomy and 1 year after mastectomy. Information regarding uptake of delayed breast reconstruction was collected at approximately 6 years after mastectomy. A predictive model was designed using a multivariate logistic regression model and Akiake information criterion stepwise algorithm.
Results: Ninety-six mastectomy patients were followed from before mastectomy to 75.2 months after mastectomy, and 35 women (36.5 percent) underwent delayed breast reconstruction. Women who elected for delayed breast reconstruction experienced worsening of body concerns from before mastectomy to 1 year after mastectomy, compared with women who did not elect to undergo delayed breast reconstruction (p = 0.03). Mean scores for psychological distress were significantly worse both before mastectomy and 1 year after mastectomy in women who went on to undergo delayed breast reconstruction compared with those who did not undergo delayed breast reconstruction (p = 0.034 and p = 0.022, respectively). A predictive model for the uptake of delayed breast reconstruction was developed using demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 85 percent, indicating good precision. Conclusions: Women who are experiencing higher levels of distress, anxiety, and body concerns both before and after mastectomy appear to be significantly likely to select delayed breast reconstruction. This may have implications for postreconstruction satisfaction and psychosocial functioning.
An exploration of Australian psychologists' role in assessing women considering risk-reducing or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy
An exploration of Australian psychologists' role in assessing women considering risk-reducing or contralateral prophylactic mastectomy
Braude, Lucy et al.
The Breast , Volume 32 , 105 - 111
Given increasing rates of risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPM), and the potentially significant psychological sequelae of this irreversible procedure, health professionals (HPs) regularly refer patients to psychologists for pre-operative assessment and support. This is the first study to provide qualitative insights from HPs into the role of psychologists who are working with women considering RRM or CPM.
Braude, Lucy et al.
The Breast , Volume 32 , 105 - 111
Given increasing rates of risk-reducing mastectomies (RRM) and contralateral prophylactic mastectomies (CPM), and the potentially significant psychological sequelae of this irreversible procedure, health professionals (HPs) regularly refer patients to psychologists for pre-operative assessment and support. This is the first study to provide qualitative insights from HPs into the role of psychologists who are working with women considering RRM or CPM.
Evidence-Based Medicine: Autologous Breast Reconstruction
Evidence-Based Medicine: Autologous Breast Reconstruction
Macadam, SA et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:January 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 1 - p 204e–229e
Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Gain an understanding of the different methods of autologous reconstruction available. 2. Understand the timing of autologous breast reconstruction and the impact of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments. 3 Understand the factors necessary for a comprehensive patient assessment. 4. Gain knowledge of patient factors that will affect autologous reconstruction and potential contraindications. 5. Summarize the patient-reported and clinical outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction. Summary: This article was prepared to accompany practice-based assessment with ongoing surgical education for the Maintenance of Certification for the American Board of Plastic Surgery. It is structured to outline the care of the patient with the postmastectomy breast deformity.
Macadam, SA et al
Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery:January 2017 - Volume 139 - Issue 1 - p 204e–229e
Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Gain an understanding of the different methods of autologous reconstruction available. 2. Understand the timing of autologous breast reconstruction and the impact of adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments. 3 Understand the factors necessary for a comprehensive patient assessment. 4. Gain knowledge of patient factors that will affect autologous reconstruction and potential contraindications. 5. Summarize the patient-reported and clinical outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction. Summary: This article was prepared to accompany practice-based assessment with ongoing surgical education for the Maintenance of Certification for the American Board of Plastic Surgery. It is structured to outline the care of the patient with the postmastectomy breast deformity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)