Search

Background: Breast cancer is associated with a multitude of risk factors, such as genetic predisposition and mutations, family history, personal medical history, or previous radiotherapy. A prophylactic mastectomy (PM) may be considered a suitable risk-reducing procedure in some cases. However, there are significant discrepancies between national society recommendations and insurance company requirements for PM., Materials and Methods: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for a PM. One-hundred companies were selected based on the greatest state enrolment and market share. Their policies were identified through a Web-based search and telephone interviews, and their medical necessity criteria were extracted., Results: Preauthorized coverage of PMs was provided by 39% of insurance policies (n = 39) and 5 indications were identified. There was consensus amongst these policies to cover a PM for BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 39, 100%), but was more variable for other genetic mutations (15%-90%). Coverage of PM for the remaining indications varied among insurers: previous radiotherapy (92%), pathological changes in the breast (3%-92%), personal history of cancer (64%) and family history risk factors (39%-51%)., Conclusion: There is a marked level of variability in both the indications and medical necessity criteria for PM insurance policies. The decision to undergo a PM must be carefully considered with a patient's care team and should not be affected by insurance coverage status., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is more common in the United States than the rest of the world. However, the benefit of this procedure is still under question in many breast cancer scenarios. CPM utilization in the United States is in part dependent on a patient's health insurance coverage of breast oncology surgery and any desired reconstruction. However, there are great discrepancies in the coverage provided by insurers., Methods: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for a CPM in the setting of diagnosed breast cancer. One hundred companies were selected based on their state enrollment and market share. Their policies were identified through a Web-based search and telephone interviews, and their medical necessity criteria were extracted., Results: Of the 100 companies assessed, 36 (36%) had a policy for CPM. Within those, significantly more provided coverage than denied the procedure (72% vs. 25%, p < 0.0001), with the remainder providing case-by-case coverage. Eleven criteria were identified from preauthorized policies, the most common prerequisite was breast cancer diagnosis under 45 years old (n = 9, 35%). Most policies did not differentiate between gender in their policies (n = 25, 69%), but of those that did, 100% (n = 11) provided coverage for men and women, with 82% (n = 9) requiring further criteria from the female patients., Conclusion: The coverage of CPM in the United States varies from complete denial to unrestricted approval. This may be due to conflicting reports in the literature as to the utility of the procedure. The decision to undergo this procedure must be taken with thoughtful consideration and the support of a multidisciplinary approach., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Learning Objectives: After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Understand the relevant anatomy involved in breast reduction. 2. Understand the different breast reduction techniques and their indications. 3. Appreciate the outcomes of these techniques as they pertain to clinical outcomes., Summary: This continuing medical education article is designed to refresh one's knowledge on breast reduction while placing emphasis on clinical outcomes. It reviews the relevant anatomy, techniques, and published literature on outcomes, including those that are patient-reported. Photographic representations of most techniques are shown, in addition to supplemental digital video content, to demonstrate each technique. This is designed to be an overview, and the reader should appreciate that no one technique is "right," and the technique used should be selected with patient factors and desired outcomes in mind.

Background: The Cook-Swartz Doppler has long been a trusted tool for close monitoring of blood flow after microvascular reconstruction; however, device implantation requires additional operating time. Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. received FDA approval in 2010 for the Flow Coupler, which combines an end-to-end anastomotic coupler with a removable 20 MHz Doppler, allowing both procedures to be performed simultaneously. However, its short history of widespread use necessitates further evaluation in the clinical setting. The authors studied the Synovis Flow Coupler in comparison to the more well-established Cook-Swartz Doppler for effectiveness and reliability in detection of vascular compromise., Methods: The authors reviewed 220 free flap breast reconstructions in 150 patients over a three-year period in which either the Cook-Swartz Doppler or the Synovis Flow Coupler was implanted to monitor blood flow. Outcomes measured include false-positive or false-negative rates (FPR, FNR); rates of OR take-back and salvage; and flap survival., Results: FPR was 1.0% for the Cook-Swartz Doppler and 1.9% for the Synovis Flow Coupler (p>0.05). FNR was 0.0% for both groups. Take-back rates were 10.1% for the Cook-Swartz, and 4.5% for Synovis (p>0.05). Flap failure rates were 1.8% and 0.9% for the Cook-Swartz and Synovis devices, respectively (p>0.05)., Conclusions: Our study reveals no statistically significant differences in outcomes for free flap breast reconstruction where either the Cook-Swartz Doppler or the Synovis Flow Coupler was used to monitor blood flow to the perforator flap., Level of Evidence: III., (Copyright © 2014 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast reduction is an increasingly common procedure performed by Canadian plastic surgeons. Recent studies in the United States show that use of the inferior/central pedicle inverted T scar method is predominant. However, it is unknown what the practice preferences are among Canadian plastic surgeons., Objective: The goal of the present study was to assess trends in breast reduction surgery among Canadian surgeons, including patient selection criteria, surgical techniques and outcomes., Method: Surveys were distributed to plastic surgeons at the Canadian Society for Plastic Surgery meetings in 2005 and 2006. Completed surveys were obtained from 140 respondents, and results were analyzed with Excel and SAS software., Results: There was a 40% response rate. The majority of surgeons (66%) used more than one technique for breast reduction. Most commonly, surgeons use the inverted T scar technique (66%) followed by vertical scar techniques (26%). The most popular vertical scar techniques included the Hall-Findlay (14%) and Lejour (13%) methods. Most surgeons (55%) reported complication rates of less than 5% and the most common complication reported was wound dehiscence. There was no difference in overall complication rates between inverted T scar and vertical scar surgeries. The majority of surgeons (98%) carried out breast reduction either exclusively as day surgery or in combination with same-day admission. Breast reduction performed as day surgery resulted in cost savings of $873 per patient., Conclusions: Canadian plastic surgeons are performing more vertical scar breast reductions than American surgeons. However, both groups rely predominantly on inverted T scar techniques.