Search

Implant-based reconstruction (IBR) is the most frequently performed breast reconstruction procedure in the USA. As the US population ages, an increasing number of these patients suffer from comorbidities requiring the use of chronic antithrombotic therapy. Outcomes following IBR in patients prescribed these medications are not well understood.An all-payor administrative claims database (52 million patients) was queried for patients undergoing IBR from 2010 through 2018. Patients who were prescribed therapeutic antithrombotic therapy, and those who were not, were matched in a one-to-one fashion for comorbidities independently associated with bleeding and thrombo-ischemic events following first-stage IBR. Cox proportional hazards models investigated the 90-day risk of bleeding and major thrombo-ischemic events following IBR.Of the 36,379 patients found to have undergone IBR, 2,024 patients were perfectly matched for age and high-risk comorbidities. Patients prescribed antithrombotic drugs had increased 90-day risk for all thrombo-ischemic complications (HR: 5.62, 95% CI: 3.53-8.95, p0.0001), as well as a significantly increased risk for 90-day DVT, 90-day PE, 90-day myocardial infarction, and 90-day stroke. Patients specifically prescribed antiplatelet drugs, direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC), and warfarin had a significantly increased risk for transfusion.Patients prescribed antithrombotic therapy had a significantly increased risk for life-threatening thrombotic events and transfusion following elective IBR. This suggests a role for further monitoring and a potential role for multi- and interdisciplinary interventions to help mitigate this risk. These interventions can be the subject of future prospective studies.

Background Iatrogenic Eloesser-type wounds are often debilitating, complex, chronically draining, and require a careful reconstructive approach to successfully close. There has not been described a standardized approach to chest wall reconstruction for these wounds. The Rush Algorithm for chest wall reconstruction provides a simple and systematic guide for cumulative soft tissue reconstruction in these cases, utilizing latissimus dorsi, serratus anterior, and pectoralis major flaps in sequence. Methods The Rush Algorithm was applied to a pilot case series of three patients with complex iatrogenic draining chest wall defects arising from various disease processes. Reconstructive methods were guided by this algorithm and intraoperative procedures tailored to each case. Sequential use of combined latissimus, serratus, and pectoralis flaps were utilized as deemed necessary by the investigators. Results All three cases achieved successful closure of complex chest wounds based on post-operative physical exam, imaging, and quality of life findings. Average time to subcutaneous drain removal was five days and average time to thoracostomy tube removal was seven days. No patients experienced major complications defined as infection, seroma, hematoma, prolonged hospital stay, readmission, or return to operating room. Conclusions The Rush Algorithm for chest wall reconstruction is a practical way to safely reconstruct Eloesser-type iatrogenic chest wounds. It will need to be further validated in order to develop and confirm the algorithm as the reconstructive approach of choice, but its utility as a framework for surgical planning at this time appears to be valid.

Surgical site infections represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. As with other postoperative complications, the incidence of these infections may be influenced by many factors and varies depending on the specific operation performed. Understanding the risk factors for infection development is critical because careful patient selection and appropriate perioperative counseling will set the right expectations and can ultimately improve patient outcomes and satisfaction. Various perioperative prevention measures may also be employed to minimize the incidence of these infections. Once the infection occurs, prompt diagnosis will allow management of the infection and any associated complications in a timely manner to ensure patient safety, optimize the postoperative course, and avoid long-term sequelae.

Background Autologous flaps can be used in combination with prosthesis in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. The deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is considered the preferred choice among autologous tissue transfer techniques. In patients with a breast volume asymmetry, there are several options for attaining an optimal reconstructive and aesthetic result. Methods This report presents a patient who underwent a combination of reconstructive techniques to achieve volumetric symmetry. Results The patient had a previous bilateral augmentation mammoplasty, was then treated for left breast carcinoma with a lumpectomy and radiation, and since that time had a recalcitrant left capsular contracture despite multiple operative interventions. The patient ultimately chose to have autologous left breast reconstruction and a stacked DIEP flap with simultaneous implant placement was performed. Conclusion In cases of significant volumetric asymmetry, a stacked DIEP flap in combination with a prosthesis is a novel and safe solution.

Hematomas represent one of the most common postoperative complications in patients undergoing aesthetic surgery. Depending on the type of procedure performed, hematoma incidence and presentation can vary greatly. Understanding the risk factors for hematoma formation and the preoperative considerations to mitigate the risk is critical to provide optimal care to the aesthetic patient. Various perioperative prevention measures may also be employed to minimize hematoma incidence. The surgeon's ability to adequately diagnose and treat hematomas after aesthetic surgery is not only crucial to patient care but also minimizes the risk of further complications or long-term sequelae. Understanding hematoma development and management enhances patient safety and will lead to overall increased patient satisfaction after aesthetic surgery.

A consensus on the optimal surgical approach for repair of a paraesophageal hernia has not been reached. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of open and laparoscopic paraesophageal hernia repairs (PHR), both with and without mesh. A review of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database from 2007 to 2011 was conducted. Patients who underwent an open or laparoscopic PHR were included. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included infections, respiratory and cardiac complications, intraoperative or perioperative transfusions, sepsis, and septic shock. Statistical analyses using odds ratios were performed comparing the open and laparoscopic approaches. A total of 4470 patients were identified using NSQIP; 2834 patients had a laparoscopic repair and the remaining 1636 patients underwent an open PHR. Compared with the laparoscopic approach, the open repair group had significantly higher 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 4.75; 95% confidence interval, 2.67 to 8.47; P < 0.0001). The laparoscopic approach had a statistically significant decrease in infections, respiratory and cardiac events/complications, transfusion requirements, episodes of sepsis, and septic shock ( P < 0.05). Our data suggest increased perioperative morbidity associated with an open PHR compared with laparoscopic. There was no statistically significant difference in any of the primary or secondary outcomes in patients repaired with mesh compared with those without. The overall use of mesh in paraesophageal hernia repairs has increased. The NSQIP data show significantly increased 30-day mortality in open repair compared with laparoscopic as well as a significantly higher perioperative complication rate.