Search

Background: The recent proposed alterations to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulations, although subsequently reversed on August 21, 2023, have engendered persistent concerns regarding the impact of insurance policies on breast reconstruction procedures coverage. This study aimed to identify factors that would influence women's preferences regarding autologous breast reconstruction to better understand the possible consequences of these coverage changes., Methods: A survey of adult women in the United States was conducted via Amazon Mechanical Turk to assess patient preferences for breast reconstruction options, specifically deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) and transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flap surgery. The Cochrane-Armitage test evaluated trends in flap preferences concerning incremental out-of-pocket payment increases., Results: Of 500 total responses, 485 were completed and correctly answered a verification question to ensure adequate attention to the survey, with respondents having a median (interquartile range) age of 26 (25-39) years. When presented with the advantages and disadvantages of DIEP versus TRAM flaps, 78% of respondents preferred DIEP; however, as DIEP's out-of-pocket price incrementally rose, more respondents favored the cheaper TRAM option, with $3804 being the "indifference point" where preferences for both procedures converged (P < 0.001). Notably, respondents with a personal history of breast reconstruction showed a higher preference for DIEP, even at a $10,000 out-of-pocket cost (P = 0.04)., Conclusions: Out-of-pocket cost can significantly influence women's choices for breast reconstruction. These findings encourage a reevaluation of emergent insurance practices that could potentially increase out-of-pocket costs associated with DIEP flaps, to prevent cost from decreasing equitable patient access to most current reconstructive options., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is limited information regarding the perioperative effects of marijuana in breast reconstructive surgeries., Objectives: The objective of this study was to explore the association between a history of cannabis use and postoperative complications in the setting of implant-based breast reconstruction., Methods: Two databases, TriNetX and PearlDiver, were queried for patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on active ICD-10 diagnostic codes: (1) cannabis use only, (2) tobacco use only, (3) cannabis and tobacco use, and (4) neither cannabis nor tobacco use. Associations with postoperative complications were analyzed with a logistic regression test., Results: TriNetX search revealed that 327 patients had an active diagnosis of cannabis use only and 1118 had an active diagnosis of tobacco use only. Patients in the cannabis only cohort had a significantly increased risk of developing surgical site infection. Patients in the tobacco only cohort had significantly increased risk of developing wound dehiscence, need for debridement, and surgical site infection. The PearlDiver search included 472 patients who had an active diagnosis of both cannabis and tobacco use and 17,361 patients with a diagnosis of tobacco use only. Patients with a diagnosis of cannabis and tobacco use had a significantly increased risk of developing postoperative complications including surgical site infection, wound dehiscence, need for incision and drainage, and debridement., Conclusions: Patients undergoing implant-based breast reconstruction with an active diagnosis of cannabis with or without tobacco use were at increased risk of developing postoperative complications, and the risk was even higher in patients using both tobacco and cannabis., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Microsurgical breast reconstruction following mastectomy represents a high-risk patient group for venous thromboembolism (VTE), but there is limited consensus on postoperative prophylaxis duration. The aim of this study was to characterize the risk of VTE after microsurgical breast reconstruction, the risk reduction associated with postoperative outpatient VTE prophylaxis, the clinical factors associated with VTE events, and surgeon prescribing patterns regarding outpatient VTE prophylaxis., Methods: A commercially available database of 53 million unique patients, PearlDiver, was used to identify patients with breast cancer who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction. Patients were grouped into those receiving any form of outpatient VTE prophylaxis at discharge and those who did not. Probability of VTE within 90 days was calculated for each group followed by absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat. A logistic regression, assuming binomial distribution, was performed to determine clinical factors associated with VTE events after surgery., Results: A total of 22,606 patients underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2020. Of these patients, 356 (1.6%) were discharged with VTE prophylaxis and 22,250 (98.4%) were discharged without. No patients developed a VTE in the prophylaxis group, and 403 (1.8%) developed a VTE in the group without prophylaxis. The number needed to prevent one VTE was 55.25 patients. Most VTE events occurred after postoperative day 10 (71.3%)., Conclusions: Outpatient chemoprophylaxis following breast reconstruction is underused despite the majority of VTE events occurring after the acute postoperative period. Breast microsurgeons should consider routine outpatient chemoprophylaxis as part of their postoperative care pathway to optimize VTE prevention., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: In recent years, indocyanine green angiography (ICG-A) has been used increasingly to assist tissue perfusion assessments during plastic and reconstructive surgery procedures, but no guidelines exist regarding its use. We sought to identify areas of consensus and non-consensus among international experts on the use of ICG-A for tissue-perfusion assessments during plastic and reconstructive surgery., Methods: A two-round, online Delphi survey was conducted of 22 international experts from four continents asking them to vote on 79 statements divided into five modules: module 1 = patient preparation and contraindications (n = 11 statements); module 2 = ICG administration and camera settings (n = 17); module 3 = other factors impacting perfusion assessments (n = 10); module 4 = specific indications, including trauma debridement (n = 9), mastectomy skin flaps (n = 6), and free flap reconstruction (n = 8); and module 5 = general advantages and disadvantages, training, insurance coverage issues, and future directions (n = 18). Consensus was defined as ≥70% inter-voter agreement., Results: Consensus was reached on 73/79 statements, including the overall value, advantages, and limitations of ICG-A in numerous surgical settings; also, on the dose (0.05 mg/kg) and timing of ICG administration (∼20-60 seconds preassessment) and best camera angle (61-90 o ) and target-to-tissue distance (20-30 cm). However, consensus also was reached that camera angle and distance can vary, depending on the make of camera, and that further research is necessary to technically optimize this imaging tool. The experts also agreed that ambient light, patient body temperature, and vasopressor use impact perfusion assessments., Conclusion: ICG-A aids perfusion assessments during plastic and reconstructive surgery and should no longer be considered experimental. It has become an important surgical tool., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Dopamine has a favorable therapeutic profile but has not been widely used to treat hypotension during microvascular breast reconstruction. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients who received dopamine during breast reconstruction using deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) free flaps and compare them with patients who did not receive dopamine., Methods: A single-center retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent breast reconstruction with DIEP free flaps between October 2018 and March 2020. Patient demographics, comorbidities, fluid balance, hospital stay, and adverse outcomes were compared between patients who received at least 1 h of dopamine (DA) and patients who did not receive dopamine (ND). Subgroup analyses were performed for bilateral procedures and patients who received dopamine., Results: Twenty-five patients in the DA group and 43 patients in the ND group met the inclusion criteria. There were no flap-related complications. Patients who had dopamine initiated to maintain blood pressures had a higher total volume of intravenous fluid (ND:3.81L vs. DA:5.04L, p = 0.005). However, DA patients exhibited decreased fluid requirements (ND:839 mL/h vs. DA:479 mL/h, p = 0.004) and increased urine output (ND:98.0 mL/h vs. DA:340 mL/h, p = <0.001) once dopamine was initiated. Intraoperative urine output (ND:1.37 L vs. DA:3.48 L, p < 0.001) and rate (ND:1.9 ml/kg/h vs. DA:3.7 ml/kg/h, p < 0.001) were increased in the DA group. The fluid balance of patients undergoing bilateral procedures was closer to neutral for patients who received dopamine (ND:+3.43 L vs. DA:+2.26 L, p = 0.03)., Conclusion: Dopamine is safe to use in microvascular breast reconstruction. It may be beneficial for hemodynamically labile patients by stabilizing blood pressure and facilitating a neutral fluid balance., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement None of the authors have a financial interest in any of the products, devices, or drugs mentioned in this article., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Implant-based reconstruction is the most common procedure for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Acellular dermal matrix is used to provide additional coverage in subpectoral and prepectoral implant placement. In this study, the authors compared postoperative outcomes between AlloDerm (LifeCell, Branchburg, N.J.) and DermACELL (Stryker, Kalamazoo, Mich.), two acellular dermal matrix brands., Methods: A retrospective review of implant-based breast reconstruction from 2016 to 2020 was conducted. Patient demographics and comorbidities, implant size and location, acellular dermal matrix choice, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes assessed were seroma and infection compared between two acellular dermal matrix brands. Independent clinical parameters were assessed with multiple logistic regression models for the primary outcomes., Results: Reconstruction was performed in 150 patients (241 breasts). Eighty-eight patients underwent expander placement with AlloDerm and 62 patients with DermACELL. There were no significant differences in patient characteristics between the two groups. There was a significantly higher incidence of seroma in the AlloDerm group in univariate (AlloDerm 21.7 percent versus DermACELL 8.2 percent, p < 0.005) and multivariate analyses ( p = 0.04; 95 percent CI, 1.02 to 6.07). Acellular dermal matrix use (regardless of type) was not associated with higher rates of infection ( p = 0.99), but body mass index was ( p = 0.004)., Conclusions: Both AlloDerm and DermACELL had similar infection rates regardless of contributing risk factors. AlloDerm was found to be a risk factor for seroma formation in the postoperative period. As such, it is important to be aware of this complication when performing implant-based reconstruction with this brand of acellular dermal matrix., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Therapeutic, III., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background:  All women undergoing a mastectomy have the right to reconstruction. However, many women do not receive reconstruction and many more are not aware of all the reconstructive options available to them. Travel distance to a center that provides reconstruction and subsequent follow-up may be a contributing factor to this disparity especially among those who seek microsurgical options. Telehealth, which provides patients with remote video consultations and decreases the travel burden, may be a solution to optimize the accessibility of breast reconstruction for these patients. The purpose of this study was to discuss the efficacy and reliability of telehealth to overcome geographic barriers., Methods:  Patients who received breast reconstruction and participated in video telehealth visits between February and May 2020 were included in this study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and clinical outcomes were collected. Video telehealth encounters were reviewed to determine specific concerns and questions discussed during these encounters., Results:  A total of 235 breast reconstruction surgery patient encounters were recorded for 4 plastic surgeons who offer microsurgical breast reconstruction. Eighty-eight patients (37.4%) were seen as telehealth visits, 20 (22.7%) of which were new patient visits. Eight (9.09%) patients were microsurgical breast reconstruction candidates and 25 (28.4%) were following-up after microsurgical breast reconstruction. The majority of telehealth visits included normally healing wounds in the postoperative patient., Conclusion:  Telehealth provides an avenue for premastectomy consultation, second opinion visits, and postoperative follow-up for patients who have geographical barriers precluding them from reaching plastic surgeons who perform all types of breast reconstruction., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Perforator-based microsurgical reconstruction of the breast has steadily increased since the introduction of the technique in the 1990s. The procedure appears to offer less postoperative pain, lower abdominal morbidity, and better preservation of the rectus muscles than the more conventional flaps. However, the major disadvantage of these flaps that they can be difficult to harvest, resulting in a longer operative times. The challenges in flap dissection are a result of the variability in the vascular anatomy of the deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) and its perforating branches through the rectus muscle. The location, number, and caliber of the perforators and the intramuscular trajectory of the DIEA branches vary greatly not only from individual to individual, but from one hemiabdomen to the other. The establishment of a presurgical map of the vessels on the abdomen facilitates surgical planning and may decrease operating room time, reduce intraoperative complications, and possibly improve outcomes. This article reviews the available techniques for preoperative planning with the currently available imaging modalities of handheld Doppler, color Doppler (duplex) ultrasound, computed tomography angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography.