Search

Background: Racial disparities are evident in multiple aspects of the perioperative care of breast cancer patients, but data examining whether such differences translate to clinical and patient-reported outcomes are limited. This study examined the impact of race on perioperative outcomes in autologous breast reconstruction., Methods: A retrospective cohort study including all breast cancer patients who underwent immediate autologous breast reconstruction at a single institution from 2010 to 2017 was conducted. Self-reported race was used to classify patients into three groups: white, African American, and other. The primary and secondary endpoints were occurrence of any major complications within 30 days of surgery and patient-reported outcomes (measured with the BREAST-Q), respectively. Regression models were constructed to identify factors associated with the outcomes., Results: Overall, 404 patients, including 259 white (64 percent), 63 African American (16 percent), and 82 patients from other minority groups (20 percent), were included. African American patients had a significantly higher proportion of preoperative comorbidities. Postoperatively, African American patients had a higher incidence of 30-day major complications (p = 0.004) and were more likely to return to the operating room (p = 0.006). Univariable analyses examining complications demonstrated that race was the only factor associated with 30-day major complications (p = 0.001). Patient-reported outcomes were not statistically different at each time point through 3 years postoperatively., Conclusions: African American patients continue to present with increased comorbidities and may be more likely to experience major complications following immediate autologous breast reconstruction. However, patient-reported satisfaction or physical well-being outcomes may not differ between groups., Clinical Question/level of Evidence: Risk, II., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: The response to the unprecedented opioid crisis in the US has increased focus on multimodal pain regimens and enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways to reduce opioid use. This study aimed to define patient and system-level factors related to perioperative consumption of opioids in autologous free-flap breast reconstruction., Methods: We conducted a retrospective study to identify patients who underwent autologous breast reconstruction between 2010 and 2016. A multivariate linear regression model was developed to assess patient and system-level factors influencing opioid consumption. Opioid consumption was then dichotomized as total postoperative opioid consumption above (high) and below (low) the 50th percentile to afford more in-depth interpretation of the regression analysis. Secondary outcome analyses examined postoperative complications and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using the BREAST-Q., Results: Overall, 601 patients were included in the analysis. Unilateral reconstruction, lower body mass index, older age, and administration of ketorolac and liposomal bupivacaine were associated with lower postoperative opioid consumption. In contrast, history of psychiatric diagnoses was associated with higher postoperative opioid consumption. There was no difference in the rates of postoperative complications when comparing the groups, although patients who had lower postoperative opioid consumption had higher BREAST-Q physical well-being scores., Conclusion: System-level components of ERAS pathways may reduce opioid use following autologous breast reconstruction, but surgical and patient factors may increase opioid requirements in certain patients. ERAS programs including liposomal bupivacaine and ketorolac should be established on a system level in conjunction with continued focus on individualized care, particularly for patients at risk for high opioid consumption., (© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Objective: Aggressive or restricted perioperative fluid management has been shown to increase complications in patients undergoing microsurgery. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) aims to administer fluid, vasoactive agents, and inotropes according to each patient's hemodynamic indices. This study assesses GDFT impact on perioperative outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) patients, as there remains a gap in management understanding. We hypothesize that GDFT will have lower fluid administration and equivocal outcomes compared to patients not on GDFT., Methods: A single-center retrospective review was conducted on ABR patients from January 2010-April 2017. An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) using GDFT was implemented in April 2015. With GDFT, patients were administered intraoperative fluids and vasoactive agents according to hemodynamic indices. Patients prior to April 2015 were included in the pre-ERAS cohort. Primary outcomes included the amount and rate of fluid delivery, urine output (UOP), vasopressor administration, major (i.e., flap failure) and minor (i.e., seroma) complications, and length of stay (LOS)., Results: Overall, 777 patients underwent ABR (ERAS: 312 and pre-ERAS: 465). ERAS patients received significantly less total fluid volume (ERAS median: 3750 mL [IQR: 3000-4500 mL]; pre-ERAS median: 5000 mL [IQR 4000-6400 mL]; and p<0.001), had lower UOP, were more likely to receive vasopressor agents (47% vs 35% and p<0.001), and had lower LOS (ERAS: 4 days [4-5]; pre-ERAS: 5 [4-6]; and p<0.001) as compared to pre-ERAS patients. Complications did not differ between cohorts., Conclusions: GDFT, as part of ERAS, and the prudent use of vasopressors were found to be safe and did not increase morbidity in ABR patients. GDFT provides individualized perioperative care to the ABR patient., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr. A. Afonso is a consultant for and has received a research grant from Pacira Pharmaceutical and she serves on the advisory board of Merck. Dr. J. Dayan is a paid consultant for Stryker. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)