Search

Background: Studies have shown improved outcomes following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as compared to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients who have left main or multivessel disease or diabetes with concomitant multivessel disease. However, there are various factors influencing the patient’s decision to have surgery. This study aims to elucidate the reasons why some patients with indications for the procedure do not eventually receive CABG. Methods: Cases from a single tertiary referral centre were retrospectively examined and indicated patients who did not undergo CABG were included in this study. The main reasons for not undergoing CABG were identified and classified into sub-themes. The risk of CABG quoted by surgeons during surgical consultation was categorised into high or non-high and compared against the patient’s EuroSCORE II. Subjective risk perception was compared with objective measurements to evaluate if subjective risk perception correlated with objective measurements. Results: A total of 301 cases were reviewed and 127 cases were finally included. Patient choice was the most common reason for not undergoing CABG, followed by surgical reasons, then medical reasons. The most common sub-theme of reasons to not proceed given by patients was fear of the procedure (52%), followed by age (15%). The most common surgeon subtheme was perceived high risk for stroke or mortality (59%). Among the patients quoted as being at high risk by surgeons, only 6% had a high EuroSCORE II and 71% had a low EuroSCORE II. Conclusion: Pertinent patient and surgical reasons for declining CABG were identified. Identifying the reasons why patients indicated for CABG declined the procedure can inform and guide patient counselling. The disparity between subjective and objective risk scores suggests that surgeons’ estimation of risk incorporates factors not captured in objective risk scores, which is an area for future studies.

Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is the most commonly used procedure to reconstruct the breast after mastectomy. The advantages and disadvantages of subpectoral versus prepectoral implant placement remain a matter of debate. This study compares the need for secondary aesthetic procedures between prepectoral and subpectoral IBR.This is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent subpectoral or prepectoral IBR between 2015 and 2018 under a single surgeon at a tertiary breast unit. The primary endpoint was the number of secondary procedures performed to improve the aesthetic outcome. Secondary endpoints included the number of secondary procedures during the first year.A total of 271 one-stage IBRs were performed (subpectoral, n = 128 in 74 patients; prepectoral, n = 143 in 84 patients). Overall, more patients required secondary procedures in the subpectoral group (36.5% versus 19%; P = 0.014), although through longer follow-up. The most common procedures were pocket revision and implant exchange [11.7% versus 3.5% ( P = 0.010); 11.7% versus 4.2% ( P = 0.021)], whereas fat grafting was similar between the two groups (46% versus 40.5%; P = 0.777). When adjusted for follow-up time, there was no significant difference in the number of secondary procedures undertaken in the subpectoral versus the prepectoral group (21% versus 16%, respectively; P = 0.288) at 1 year.The requirement for secondary procedures at 1 year was not different between groups. The need for fat grafting was not increased following prepectoral IBR.Therapeutic, III.

Incidence of bilateral risk-reducing mastectomies (RRMs) is increasing. The aim of this study was to compare satisfaction, aesthetic and oncological outcomes in women undergoing RRM with implant-based reconstruction comparing nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) with skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) (sacrificing the nipple +/− nipple reconstruction). Women who had undergone bilateral RRM between 1997 and 2016 were invited. Aesthetic outcome and nipple symmetry were evaluated using standardized anthropometric measurements. The oncological outcome was assessed at last documented follow up. Ninety-three women (186 breasts) participated, 60 (64.5%) had NSM, 33 (35.5%) SSM. Median time between surgery and participation was 98.4 months (IQR: 61.7–133.9). Of the women, 23/33 (69.7%) who had SSM underwent nipple reconstruction. Nipple projection was shorter in the reconstructed SSM group than the maintained NSM group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in overall symmetry (p = 0.670), satisfaction regarding nipple preservation (p = 0.257) or overall nipple satisfaction (p = 0.074). There were no diagnoses of breast cancer at a median follow up of 129 months (IQR: 65–160.6). Women who undergo nipple-sparing RRM maintain long-term nipple symmetry. Nipple projection was less maintained after nipple reconstruction. Although satisfaction with the nipples was higher in the NSM group, this did not reach statistical significance. No breast cancers developed after RRM with long-term follow up.

Purpose Acellular dermal matrices (ADM) are increasingly used in implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR). Uncertainty remains with regard to their efficacy and complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes and complication rates associated with the use of ADMs in IBR. Methods Retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ADM-assisted IBR between 2008 and 2013. Cases were identified from a prospectively collected database. Simple descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were performed. Results A total of 110 patients (175 mastectomies) were included in the analysis. The median age was 46 (19–75) years and the median BMI was 22.2 (16.2–41.5). Seventy nine mastectomies were performed for therapeutic purposes. The median mastectomy weight was 244 (185–335) gr. The majority of reconstructions were performed with fixed volume (n = 115, 66%) or permanent expandable implants (n = 53, 30%) as one-stage procedures. Forty mastectomies were associated with at least one complication. The infection rate was 2.3% (n = 4). Post-operative haematoma developed in 5 cases (2.9%), but only 2 required surgical interventions. Three mastectomies were complicated by nipple necrosis (3.6%), 3 with skin necrosis (1.7%) and 9 with wound dehiscence (5.1%). The capsule formation rate was 2.3% (n = 4). Reconstruction failure with implant loss occurred in 3 cases (1.7%). Conclusions The complication rates following ADM-assisted IBR can be very low with appropriate patient selection and meticulous surgical technique. This supports the safety of using ADM in carefully selected patients. Further research is warranted to assess the health economics of ADM use in IBR.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed female cancer in the UK, with one in eight women receiving a cancer diagnosis during their lifetime. Forty per cent of women diagnosed with breast cancer undergo mastectomy as their primary therapeutic procedure. While a full range of choices is offered, breast reconstruction using implants is the patient-preferred method of reconstruction following mastectomy. This review discusses the evolution of implant-based reconstruction, focusing on the recent trend towards prepectoral breast reconstruction. Key quality indicators in the current literature are considered, including oncological outcomes, aesthetics and patient-related outcome measures, as are the health-care economics of this emerging surgical technique.

Background Pre-pectoral implant breast reconstruction (IBR) is gaining popularity. Several techniques using different types of meshes and methods of placement have been described, but no method is currently considered standard. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of pre-pectoral IBR using acellular dermal matrix (ADM) for anterior implant cover. Methods Retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients who underwent pre-pectoral IBR between November 2016 to August 2018. Data on demographics, adjuvant therapies and operative technique was collected. Postoperative complications, length of hospital stay and secondary cosmetic procedures were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using descriptive statistics, non-parametric tests and logistic regression. Results One hundred and eleven pre-pectoral IBR were performed in 65 patients. Median age was 41 [interquartile range (IQR), 35-51.5] years, and BMI 22 (IQR, 20.4-24.4) kg/m2. Therapeutic mastectomy was performed in 33 procedures with nipples preservation in 78 cases. The median mastectomy weight and implant volume was 360 (IQR, 220-533) gr, and 445 (IQR, 400-475) cc respectively. At a median follow-up of 18 (IQR, 12-22.5) months, 37 mastectomies had at least 1 complication, but only 12 required surgery. The implant loss rate was 4.5% (5 cases). Lipofilling as secondary procedure was performed in 10.8% of cases. Factors associated with post-operative complications on univariate analysis were nipple preservation (P=0.028), BMI (P=0.01) and implant volume (P=0.027) but these did not remain significant on multivariate analysis. Conclusions Pre-pectoral IBR using ADM for anterior implant cover is associated with low complication and reconstructive failure rate. Patient selection and meticulous surgical technique are important for successful outcome.

With early detection, breast conservation surgery with adequate surgical margins is the standard of care. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of pre-operative duct endoscopy (DE) to target surgical resection, improve adequate margins and reduce re-excision operations. Women with DCIS, stage I and II breast cancer suitable for breast conservation were randomized to DE-assisted wide local excision versus standard wide local excision (without DE). The primary endpoint was margin re-excision rates between the two groups. Secondary end points were: (i) volume differences of the surgical specimen; (ii) whether an extensive in situ component (EIC) influenced successful DE-guided resection. 78 women were randomized: 44 patients to no-DE and 34 patients to the DE group. The median age was 59 (49–65) and 56 (48–64) years in the two groups respectively with mean follow-up of 9.1 (4.2–11.1) years. There were 23 positive findings in 17 women in 30 successful DE procedures (17/30 = 56.7%). The surgical specimen volume, no-DE (17 [IQR 10–29] cm3) and DE 20 [IQR 12–28] cm3), did not differ, p = 0.377. The overall re-excision rate was 20/78 (26%), 9 (20%) and 11 (32% in the no-DE and DE groups, respectively, p = 0.233. This randomized clinical trial was limited by incomplete accrual. DE did not contribute to improved margin excision rates whether a target lesion was visualized or not. The presence of EIC did not improve efficacy of DE.

Therapeutic mammaplasty (TM) may be an alternative to mastectomy, but few well designed studies have evaluated the success of this approach or compared the short-term outcomes of TM with mastectomy with or without immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Data from the national iBRA-2 and TeaM studies were combined to compare the safety and short-term outcomes of TM and mastectomy with or without IBR.The subgroup of patients in the TeaM study who underwent TM to avoid mastectomy were identified, and data on demographics, complications, oncology and adjuvant treatment were compared with those of patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR in the iBRA-2 study. The primary outcome was the percentage of successful breast-conserving procedures in the TM group. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications and time to adjuvant therapy.A total of 2916 patients (TM 376; mastectomy 1532; mastectomy and IBR 1008) were included in the analysis. Patients undergoing TM were more likely to be obese and to have undergone bilateral surgery than those having IBR. However, patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBR were more likely to experience complications than the TM group (TM: 79, 21·0 per cent; mastectomy: 570, 37·2 per cent; mastectomy and IBR: 359, 35·6 per cent; P 0·001). Breast conservation was possible in 87·0 per cent of patients who had TM, and TM did not delay adjuvant treatment.TM may allow high-risk patients who would not be candidates for IBR to avoid mastectomy safely. Further work is needed to explore the comparative patient-reported and cosmetic outcomes of the different approaches, and to establish long-term oncological safety.La mamoplastia terapéutica (therapeutic mammaplasty, TM) puede ser una alternativa a la mastectomía, pero hay pocos estudios bien diseñados que hayan evaluado el éxito de esta estrategia o hayan comparado los resultados a corto plazo de la TM con la mastectomía con o sin (+/-) reconstrucción mamaria inmediata (immediate breast reconstruction, IBR). Para comparar la seguridad y los resultados a corto plazo de la TM y la mastectomía +/- IBR se combinaron los datos de los estudios nacionales iBRA-2 y TeaM. MÉTODOS: En el estudio TeaM se identificó el subgrupo de pacientes al que se realizó una TM para evitar la mastectomía y se compararon los datos demográficos, las complicaciones, los resultados oncológicos y el tratamiento adyuvante con las pacientes sometidas a mastectomía +/- IBR del estudio iBRA-2. La variable principal fue el porcentaje de éxito de la cirugía conservadora de mama en el grupo TM. Las variables secundarias fueron las complicaciones postoperatorias y el intervalo de tiempo hasta el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante.Se incluyeron en el análisis 2.916 pacientes (TM n = 376; mastectomía n = 1.532; IBR n = 1.008). La TM era más frecuente en pacientes obesas o en las sometidas a cirugía bilateral en comparación con las pacientes con IBR. Sin embargo, las pacientes sometidas a una mastectomía +/- IBR tenían más probabilidades de desarrollar complicaciones que las del grupo TM (TM n = 79, 21,0%; mastectomía n = 570, 37,2%; mastectomía y IBR n = 359, 35,6%; P 0,001). La conservación de la mama fue posible en el 87% de las pacientes con TM y el procedimiento no retrasó el inicio del tratamiento adyuvante. CONCLUSIÓN: La TM puede permitir que pacientes de alto riesgo que no serían candidatas a IBR eviten la mastectomía de una forma segura. Se necesitan más trabajos para comparar los resultados percibidos por las pacientes y los estéticos de las diferentes estrategias terapéuticas y establecer la seguridad oncológica a largo plazo.

Background: The central round block repair is a volume displacement technique to reconstruct large wide local excision (WLE) defects in breasts with moderate ptosis or hypertrophy. There are limited published data on the outcomes of this technique. Methods: Data were collected prospectively for 57 consecutive patients and follow up information obtained from patient records. The volume of breast resection was estimated geometrically from mammography. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed from clinical measurements and panel review of patient photographs. Results: The median age was 51 [22–86] years and follow-up 5 (1.9–8.4) years. The median specimen resection weight was 50 [25–361] g and tumour size 25 [10–75] mm. Estimated volume of breast excised was 17.8% (6–31%). In total, 12/57 patients had incomplete margins: five patients had re-excision to achieve clear margins and seven required mastectomy. Two patients had local recurrence during the follow-up period, five developed distant metastases. Aesthetic data were completed for 35/50 patients. Twelve (34%) had no measurable asymmetry and 31 (89%) had a nipple position within 2 cm of the original height. Only two patients requested symmetrising surgery. Conclusions: Central round block reconstruction of large defects after WLE is a safe technique with good aesthetic outcomes. Contralateral symmetrising surgery is not usually required.

Nipple reconstructions are prone to a variable and unpredictable degree of flattening, which in some cases lead to secondary reconstruction. The use of an acellular dermal matrix (ADM) augmentation may be appropriate in cases with very thin dermis that are particularly prone to flattening or in revision cases where the first procedure has already failed. The authors present a series of 13 nipple reconstructions in ten cases. Average projection at 12 months was 51% in primary cases and 46% in secondary revision cases. This represents a better than expected long term result in a difficult cohort of patients.

Background:. Hydrodissection (HD) is a method to create a subcutaneous and prepectoral plane during mastectomy using a mixture of crystalloid solution with local anesthetic and epinephrine. The aim of this study was to evaluate postoperative complications and surgical outcomes of this technique compared with standard mastectomy. Methods:. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent bilateral risk-reducing, nipple-sparing mastectomy and immediate implant-based reconstruction through an inframammary crease incision either with standard electrocautery (control group) or HD (HD group) between January 2013 and January 2017. Patient demographics, procedural details, surgical outcomes, and complications were compared using nonparametric statistical tests and logistic regression analysis. Results:. Forty-one patients (82 nipple-sparing mastectomies) were analyzed (23 patients in the HD group and 18 in the control group). Patients' demographics were similar for both groups. Surgical time was shorter with HD compared with standard mastectomy (median 168 versus 207.5 minutes, P = 0.016) with shorter median hospital stay (2 versus 2.5 days, P = 0.033). Complication rates were similar in both groups, and fewer patients in the HD group required Coleman fat transfer to improve cosmesis (12 versus 3, P = 0.003). Conclusions:. HD mastectomy is a safe alternative to standard technique in selected patients. Further surgical research to explore the role of HD in a wider clinical setting is warranted.

Background The majority of lesions resulting in pathological nipple discharge are benign. Conventional surgery is undirected and targeting the causative lesion by duct endoscopy may enable more accurate surgery with fewer complications. Methods Patients requiring microdochectomy and/or major duct excision were randomized to duct endoscopy or no duct endoscopy before surgery. Primary endpoints were successful visualization of the pathological lesion in patients randomized to duct endoscopy, and a comparison of the causative pathology between the two groups. The secondary endpoint was to compare the specimen size between groups. Results A total of 68 breasts were studied in 66 patients; there were 31 breasts in the duct endoscopy group and 37 in the no-endoscopy group. Median age was 49 (range 19–81) years. Follow-up was 5·4 (i.q.r. 3·3–8·9) years in the duct endoscopy group and 5·7 (3·1–9·0) years in no-endoscopy group. Duct endoscopy had a sensitivity of 80 (95 per cent c.i. 52 to 96) per cent, specificity of 71 (44 to 90) per cent, positive predictive value of 71 (44 to 90) per cent and negative predictive value of 80 (52 to 96) per cent in identifying any lesion. There was no difference in causative pathology between the groups. Median volume of the surgical resection specimen did not differ between groups. Conclusion Diagnostic duct endoscopy is useful for identifying causative lesions of nipple discharge. Duct endoscopy did not influence the pathological yield of benign or malignant diagnoses nor surgical resection volumes. Registered as INTEND II in CancerHelp UK clinical trials database (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/a-study-looking-at-changes-inside-the-breast-ducts-of-women-who-have-nipple-discharge).

A prothombotic state may be a manifestation of malignancy, either primary or recurrent. In this report we present a case of thrombosis of the internal mammary artery during delayed autologous breast reconstruction occurring in association with, and as a possible manifestation of, occult recurrent breast cancer. We discuss salvage of the microsurgical anastomosis using a vein graft and microvascular anastomotic coupler device.

The aim of this multicenter, prospective, longitudinal phase IV study was to establish the optimal duration of neoadjuvant letrozole that would allow breast conservation surgery (BCS) in patients with early breast cancer who were initially unsuitable. Primary, invasive, estrogen-receptor- and/or progesterone-receptor-positive breast cancer patients, with large tumors (≥T2 i.e., >20 mm) not initially suitable for BCS, received 2.5 mg letrozole p.o. daily. Patients continued treatment until they became eligible for BCS, progressed, failed to meet criteria for BCS and withdrew for scheduled mastectomy, withdrew for other reasons, or completed 12 months of letrozole treatment without a BCS decision being made. A total of 146 patients were enrolled; seven patients who did not have a valid postbaseline tumor assessment were excluded from the final efficacy analysis. At study closure, 69 % of patients (96 of 139) were eligible for BCS. The median time to achieve a tumor response sufficient to allow BCS with neoadjuvant letrozole was 7.5 months (95 % CI 6.3–8.5 months). Letrozole was well tolerated, and most adverse events were mild-to-moderate (grade 1–2). The results from this trial suggest that extended letrozole therapy in the neoadjuvant setting (7.5 months), as opposed to conventional treatment of 4 months, is optimal to achieve maximum reduction in tumor volume sufficient for BCS.

39 Background: Image-guided vacuum-assisted biopsy (VAB) is increasingly used after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to assess residual disease in the breast, facilitate risk-adaptive surgery and potentially identify exceptional responders who may not require surgical intervention. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the diagnostic performance of a standardized post-NAC VAB protocol, developed following retrospective analysis of institutional data (1). Methods: Prospective cohort study of patients with HER2 positive and triple negative (TN) invasive ductal carcinoma, treated with NAC, who had partial/complete imaging response and underwent post-NAC VAB to aid surgical planning between 02/2018 and 06/2019. The aim of VAB was to sample the site of residual imaging abnormality (breast residuum