Search

Purpose Delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) is a valid option for postmastectomy breast cancer patients who have a desire for breast reconstruction but are not considered suitable for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). The objective of this study was to investigate the clinical practice and predictors of the use of DBR in the Netherlands. Methods Stage I–III breast cancer patients diagnosed from January to March 2012 and treated with mastectomy were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Routinely collected patient, tumor, treatment and hospital characteristics were complemented with data about DBR up to 2018. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors independently associated with postmastectomy DBR. Factors associated with time to DBR were identified through Cox regression analyses. Results Of all patients who underwent mastectomy (n = 1,415), 10.2% underwent DBR. DBR patients more often received autologous reconstruction compared to IBR patients (37.5% vs 6.2%, p Discussion The use of DBR after mastectomy could not be fully explained by age below 50 years, chemotherapy, and hospital volume. Treatment with radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy increased time to DBR. More information about patient preferences is needed to understand the use and timing of reconstruction.

The purpose was to describe the operation technique of an anterior lateral intercostal artery perforator (LICAP) flap and analyse outcomes and complications. An anterior LICAP flap is a good and safe alternative for direct oncoplastic breast reconstruction. It is a reliable flap that provides sufficient volume and good esthetic outcomes.

ImportanceIt is unknown how often breast implant illness (BII) is the indication for revision in women with silicone breast implants.ObjectiveTo examine how often women with silicone breast implants have their implants explanted or replaced because of BII compared with local postoperative complications.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA legacy cohort study on breast implant revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and a prospective cohort study on breast implantation and revision surgery was conducted between April 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019 (with follow-up until December 31, 2020). Data were obtained from the Dutch Breast Implant Registry. Data analysis was performed from September 2021 to August 2022.ExposuresSilicone breast implant.Main Outcomes and MeasuresBreast implant revision with the indication BII or local postoperative complications.ResultsAll 12 882 cosmetic breast implants (6667 women; mean [SD] age, 50.6 [12.7] years) and 2945 reconstructive breast implants (2139 women, mean [SD] age, 57.9 [11.3] years) in the legacy cohort and all 47 564 cosmetic breast implants (24 120 women, mean [SD] age, 32.3 [9.7] years) and 5928 reconstructive breast implants (4688 women, mean [SD] age, 50.9 [11.5] years) in the prospective cohort were included for analysis. In the prospective cohort, 739 cosmetic breast implants (1.6%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.8 (0.9-3.1) years, and 697 reconstructive breast implants (11.8%) were revised after a median (IQR) time to reoperation of 1.1 (0.5-1.9) years. BII was registered as the reason for revision in 35 cosmetic revisions (4.7%) and 5 reconstructive revisions (0.7%) in the prospective cohort, corresponding to 0.1% of the inserted implants. In the legacy cohort, 536 cosmetic revisions (4.2%) and 80 reconstructive breast implant revisions (2.7%) were performed because of BII.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of women with silicone breast implants, BII was an uncommon indication for revision compared with local complications, both in the short and long term. In contrast to the increasing public interest in BII, these results showed that local complications are a far more common reason for breast implant revision.

Background: Oncological safety of different types and timings of PMBR after breast cancer remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes current clinical and shared decision-making complex. This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate differences in oncological outcomes after immediate versus delayed postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) for autologous and implant-based PMBR separately. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist were followed for data abstraction. Variability in point estimates attributable to heterogeneity was assessed using I 2-statistic. (Loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates, distant metastasis rates, and overall breast cancer recurrence rates were pooled in generalized linear mixed models using random effects. Results: Fifty-five studies, evaluating 14,217 patients, were included. When comparing immediate versus delayed autologous PMBR, weighted average proportions were: 0.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.04), respectively, for local recurrences, 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) versus 0.02 (95% CI, 0.01–0.03) for regional recurrences, and 0.04 (95% CI, 0.03–0.06) versus 0.01 (95% CI, 0.00–0.03) for locoregional recurrences. No statistically significant differences in weighted average proportions for local, regional and locoregional recurrence rates were observed between immediate and delayed autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrences after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Conclusions: Delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional breast cancer recurrence rates compared to immediate autologous PMBR. This study highlights the paucity of strong evidence on breast cancer recurrence after specific types and timings of PMBR. Lay summery: Oncologic safety of different types and timings of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) remains controversial. Lack of stratified risk assessment in literature makes clinical and shared decision-making complex. This meta-analysis showed that delayed autologous PMBR leads to similar (loco)regional recurrence rates as immediate autologous PMBR. Data did not allow comparing weighted average proportions of distant metastases and total breast cancer recurrence after autologous PMBR, and of all outcome measures after implant-based PMBR. Based on current evidence, oncological concerns do not seem a valid reason to withhold patients from certain reconstructive timings or techniques, and patients should equally be offered all reconstructive options they technically qualify for.

Background Correct registration of implant characteristics is essential to monitor implant safety within implant registries. Currently, in the nationwide Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR), these characteristics are being registered manually by plastic surgeons, resulting in administrative burden and potentially incorrect data entry. Objectives This study evaluated the accuracy of manually registered implant data, possible consequences of incorrect data, and the potential of a Digital Implant Catalog (DIC) on increasing data quality and reducing the administrative burden. Methods Manually entered implant characteristics (fill, shape, coating, texture) of newly inserted breast implants in the DBIR, from 2015 to 2019, were compared with the corresponding implant characteristics in the DIC. Reference numbers were employed to match characteristics between the 2 databases. The DIC was based on manufacturers’ product catalogs and set as the gold standard. Results A total of 57,361 DBIR records could be matched with the DIC. Accuracy of implant characteristics varied from 70.6% to 98.0%, depending on the implant characteristic. The largest discrepancy was observed for “texture” and the smallest for “coating.” All manually registered implant characteristics resulted in different conclusions about implant performance compared with the DIC (P Conclusions Implementation of a DIC increases data quality in the DBIR and reduces the administrative burden. However, correct registration of reference numbers in the registry by plastic surgeons remains key for adequate matching. Furthermore, all implant manufacturers should be involved, and regular updates of the DIC are required.

Background Breast implant-related health problems are a subject of fierce debate. Reliable population-based estimates of implant prevalence rates are not available, however, due to a lack of historical registries and incomplete sales data, precluding absolute risk assessments. Objectives This study aimed to describe the methodology of a novel procedure to determine Dutch breast implant prevalence based on the evaluation of routine chest radiographs. Methods The validity of the new method was first examined in a separate study. Eight reviewers examined a series of 180 chest radiographs with (n = 60) or without (n = 120) a breast implant confirmed by a computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scan. After a consensus meeting with best-performing expert reviewers, we reviewed 3000 chest radiographs of women aged 20 to 70 years in 2 large regional hospitals in the Netherlands in 2015. To calculate the national breast implant prevalence, regional prevalence variations were corrected utilizing the National Breast Cancer Screening Program. Results Eight reviewers scored with a median sensitivity of 71.7% (range, 41.7%-85.0%) and a median specificity of 94.6% (range, 73.4%-97.5%). After a consensus meeting and a reevaluation by best-performing expert reviewers, sensitivity was 79.9% and specificity was 99.2%. The estimated national prevalence of breast implants among women between 20 and 70 years was 3.0%, ranging from 1.7% at 21 to 30 years to 3.9% between 51 and 60 years. Conclusions The novel method in this study was validated with a high sensitivity and specificity, resulting in accurate prevalence estimates and providing the opportunity to conduct absolute risk assessment studies on the health consequences of breast implants. Level of Evidence: 2

Summary Background Today, the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap is considered to be the gold standard in microvascular breast reconstruction. Although this procedure is known as technically demanding, novice plastic surgeons must be able to perform these procedures to meet the rising demand. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if the young junior professional is trained adequate enough to set up and safely perform microsurgical breast reconstructions. Methods We compared outcomes of three identically trained novice plastic surgeons who all introduced the DIEP flap in their working environment. Their hospitals differed in size and experience with microsurgery. Outcomes were compared between all start-ups and to a center of excellence (EMC). Results A total of 152 DIEP flaps were performed in 123 patients among all start-ups together. Baseline characteristics and major complications were comparable between all groups. The total flap loss rate was 2% in the start-ups versus 3.9% in the control group (p=0.5). Although there seems to be a trend in a longer operating time in both training and non-training academic centers, no statistical significance was found between the start-ups (p=0.13) and compared to the control group (p=0.17). However, a learningcurve seems to be present when it comes to duration of surgery and is greatest in the community centers with zero experience in microsurgery (ZGT p=0.002, Amphia p=0.065). The same accounts for hospital stay. Conclusion Although there seems to be a learningcurve in terms of duration of surgery in hospitals with no experience in microsurgery, it is safe to perform microvascular breast reconstructions as a novice plastic surgeon.

Background: The Poly Implant Prothese incident and breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma have pointed to the need for uniform registries for breast implants as key features to monitoring the outcomes of breast implant surgeries internationally. The purpose of this study was to identify and harmonize common data elements collected by breast implant registries across the International Collaboration of Breast Registry Activities (ICOBRA) global consortium. Methods: The authors convened an international group of surgeons, consumers, nurses, registry experts, and regulators to review the data points. A modified Delphi approach was applied, to rate the importance of each point on a six-point Likert scale. Results: Data points from six national breast implant registries were divided into categories: clinical, implant-related, patient-reported findings; operation details and implanting technique details; patient characteristics; unique device identifiers; unique patient identifiers; and clinical demographics. A total of 52 data points collected by over 33 percent of national registries were identified. After five rounds, 34 data points formed the final set with agreed definitions. The group recognized the critical importance of additional elements that are currently not uniformly collected (e.g., patient-reported outcomes and longterm data) and set out the process for the dynamic global set updates driven by evidence gaps. Conclusions: The authors defined internationally agreed on common data elements and definitions used in breast implant registries. This collaboration will allow data sets to be combined, enabling an effective global early warning system of implant-related problems and further work on data sets.

Ulnar artery revascularization in hypothenar hammer syndrome has repeatedly been shown to reduce ischaemic symptoms, however with varying graft patency percentages. This study prospectively assesses the effect of revascularization surgery with a vein graft using validated questionnaires in seven patients. The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) and the Cold Intolerance Symptom Severity (CISS) questionnaires have been used to compare the preoperative and postoperative functionality and cold intolerance. All patients showed improvement in either functionality, or cold intolerance, or both from disabled to nearly normalized levels and resumed their occupation at final follow-up (mean of 28 months). Strikingly this was also the case in a patient with graft stenosis. Patients with the highest preoperative questionnaire scores showed most postoperative improvement. In conclusion, revascularization surgery seems to improve the symptomatology irrespective of graft patency. Questionnaires can be a valuable contribution to quantify and to follow the symptomatology in hypothenar hammer syndrome.

Background: Treatment decisions regarding volar base fractures of the middle phalanx depend on whether the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint is reduced. Our aim was to study the agreement among hand surgeons in determining whether the PIP joint fractures are subluxated and to study the factors associated with subluxation of these fractures. Methods: In this retrospective chart review, 413 volar base fractures of the middle phalanx were included. Demographic and injury-related factors were gathered from medical records and radiographs. Using a Web-based survey, interobserver agreement was determined among 105 hand surgeons on the assessment of PIP joint subluxation of a series of 26 cases. Using the cohort of 413 fractures, a threshold for percent articular involvement and relative fracture displacement that corresponds with subluxation of the PIP joint was analyzed. Results: We found moderate to substantial agreement between hand surgeons on subluxation (κ = 0.59, P < .0001) and an overall percent agreement of 85%. Percent articular involvement and relative fracture displacement were independently associated with subluxation of the PIP joint ( P < .001). Percent articular involvement of 35% had a specificity of 90% and a negative predicting value (NPV) of 92% for joint subluxation. Relative fracture displacement of 35% had a specificity of 92% and an NPV of 94% for joint subluxation. Conclusions: Surgeons generally agree on whether a PIP joint is subluxated. Percent articular involvement and relative fragment displacement are objective measurements that can help characterize joint stability and assist with decision-making.

Background: The number of performed deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps for post-mastectomy breast reconstructions (PMBR) has shown a dramatic increase over the past decade. As this increased demand requires a higher proportion of operative capacities worldwide, there is a need for increased efficiency. Introduction of lean strategies might form a solution. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the effects and outcomes of practising lean strategies in DIEP flap surgery over six years by analysing operation time and complications. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients who underwent a DIEP flap for PMBR between January 2013 and May 2019 were included. Patient- and surgery related characteristics were collected. Duration of surgery and complication rates were compared. Results: A total of 170 DIEP flaps for PMBR were performed in 139 patients. DIEP flaps were performed in an immediate (8 patients) or delayed (131 patients) setting. Mean operating time was 329 minutes for unilateral and 554 minutes for bilateral DIEP flap reconstruction. Over time, operating time decreased 19% in the unilateral, and 17.1% in the bilateral series. Also, more additional procedures during the initial DIEP flap procedure were performed over time. Total flap loss was seen in 1.2% of the cases. While surgical time decreased, the number of major complications decreased 9.3% in the unilateral and 20% in the bilateral series. Conclusions: Using lean strategies can safely reduce surgical time in DIEP flap breast reconstructions, while achieving, a reduction of complications. Level of evidence: Level IV, risk/prognostic study.

IntroductionPioneers have shown that it is possible to reconstruct a full breast using just autologous fat harvested by liposuction or autologous fat transfer (AFT). This study describes the first multicentre randomised study protocol to thoroughly investigate the effectiveness of AFT to reconstruct full breasts following mastectomy procedures (primarily and delayed).Methods and analysisThis study is designed as a multicentre, randomised controlled clinical superiority trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio. A total of 196 patients (98 patients per treatment arm) are aimed to be included. Patients who wish to undergo breast reconstruction with either one of the two techniques are randomly allocated into the AFT group (intervention) or the tissue-expander/prosthesis group (control). The primary outcome measure for the quality of life is measured by the validated BREAST-Q questionnaire.Ethics and disseminationApproval for this study was obtained from the medical ethics committee of Maastricht University Medical Centre/Maastricht University; the trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The results of this randomised controlled trial will be presented at scientific meetings as abstracts for poster or oral presentations and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial statusEnrolment into the trial has started in October 2015. Data collection and data analysis are expected to be completed in December 2021.Trial registration numberNCT02339779.

The European Leadership Forum (ELF) of the European Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (ESPRAS) previously identified the need for harmonisation of breast reconstruction standards in Europe, in order to strengthen the role of plastic surgeons. This study aims to survey the status, current trends and potential regional differences in the practice of breast reconstruction in Europe, with emphasis on equity and access. A largescale web-based questionnaire was sent to consultant plastic and reconstructive surgeons, who are experienced in breast reconstruction and with understanding of the national situation in their country. Suitable participants were identified via the Executive Committee (ExCo) of ESPRAS and national delegates of ESPRAS. The results were evaluated and related to evidence-based literature. A total of 33 participants from 29 European countries participated in this study. Overall, the incidence of breast reconstruction was reported to be relatively low across Europe, comparable to other large geographic regions, such as North America. Equity of provision and access to breast reconstruction was distributed evenly within Europe, with geographic regions potentially affecting the type of reconstruction offered. Standard practices with regard to radiotherapy differed between countries and a clear demand for European guidelines on breast reconstruction was reported. This study identified distinct lack of consistency in international practice patterns across European countries and a strong demand for consistent European guidance. Large-scale and multi-centre European clinical trials are required to further elucidate the presented areas of interest and to define European standard operating procedures. Im Rahmen des ELF der ESPRAS wurde die Notwendigkeit standardisierter Richtlinien zur Brustrekonstruktion auf europäischer Ebene definiert. Ziel dieser Studie ist es, zunächst einen Überblick über den aktuellen Status, Entwicklungen und mögliche regionale Unterschiede der Brustrekonstruktion in Europa zu geben, wobei ein Schwerpunkt auf dem Angebot, der Verteilung und dem Zugang zur Brustrekonstruktion liegt. Es erfolgte eine internetbasierte Befragung von in der Brustrekonstruktion spezialisierten Plastischen Chirurgen, welche zusätzlich die nationalen Versorgungsstrukturen ihrer jeweiligen Länder überblicken. Geeignete Teilnehmer wurden über das ExCo der ESPRAS und nationale Delegierte von ESPRAS identifiziert. Die Ergebnisse wurden mit aktueller evidenzbasierter Literatur verglichen. 33 Teilnehmer aus 29 europäischen Ländern nahmen an der Studie teil. Im Vergleich zur Gesamtzahl durchgeführter Mastektomien war die Inzidenz der Brustrekonstruktionen in Europa relativ gering, vergleichbar mit anderen großen geografischen Regionen, wie z. B. Nordamerika. Die Verfügbarkeit und der Zugang zur Brustrekonstruktion war innerhalb Europas gleichmäßig verteilt, allerdings kann die geografische Region das Verfahren der Brustrekonstruktion (Eigengewebe vs. Implantat) beeinflussen. Deutliche Differenzen zeigten sich bezüglich Brustrekonstruktionen bei bestrahlten Patientinnen. Die Studie identifizierte ein ausgeprägtes Maß an Inkohärenz in den internationalen Standards zwischen den europäischen Ländern. Es besteht großer Bedarf für kohärente europäische Leitlinien. Europäische, multizentrische klinische Studien sollten initiiert werden, um eine evidenzbasierte Grundlage zu schaffen.

Microsurgery in general has made dramatic improvements over the past decades. This applies to microsurgery in general and to breast reconstructive surgery especially. The demand for autologous breast reconstruction has risen. Since the introduction of the free transverse rectus abdominis myocutaneous (TRAM) flaps, through the muscle-sparing TRAM, flaps designs have evolved into the current gold standard, the deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap. From experiences and increasing numbers of flap procedures performed by surgeons, techniques became more familiar and part of standard care. These factors gave rise to the development of a growing number of areas of the body where tissues of interest can be harvested using perforator flap-based techniques. This chapter discusses the most common as well as the ‘rising stars’ in terms of flaps to be used as alternative flaps to the DIEP flap for breast reconstruction. It discusses practical issues on dissection as well as donor site morbidity.

Pisotriquetral disorders can cause chronic ulnar-sided wrist pain. When conservative treatment is insufficient, pisiform excision can be a solution. There are reports found in the literature describing variable effects of this procedure in small, descriptive case series. This study included 175 patients who underwent pisiform excision performed in various specialized private hand clinics between 2011 and 2015. Patients were analyzed using standardized outcome measurements. Functionality was improved significantly 3 months postoperative, with a decrease in pain (n = 86) (P < 0.05), mean improvement of 13 degrees in wrist flexion/extension (n = 72) (P < 0.001), and 18% increase in strength (n = 75) (P < 0.001). Twelve months postoperatively, the wrist function (PRWHE-DLV) improved from a mean of 64 to 25 (n = 62) (P < 0.001). The results support pisiform excision as an effective and safe treatment. Significant pain relief can be expected with improvement in wrist function. Unfortunately, a high amount of data was missing. The authors believe that the data presented in the study represents an underestimation of the results. Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: Although the use of breast implants is generally considered to be safe, breast implants are associated with short- and long-term complications. To evaluate and improve the quality of breast implant surgery, and increase our knowledge of implant performance, the national Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) was established in 2015. DBIR is one of the first up-and-running breast implant registries worldwide and follows an opt-out structure.Objective: This article provides an overview of the first outcomes and experiences of the DBIR.Methods: The national coverage of DBIR was studied using data from the Dutch Health and Youth Care Inspectorate. The incidence rate of breast implants was calculated for 2016 and 2017, and patient, device, and surgery characteristics were compared between cosmetic breast augmentations or reconstructive indications. Four infection control, measures were selected to demonstrate the variation in the Dutch clinical practice.Results: In 2016, 95% of the hospitals and 78% of the private clinics participated in DBIR. Between 2015 and 2017, a total of 15,049 patients and 30,541 breast implants were included. A minimum breast implant incidence rate of 1 per 1,691 women could be determined for 2017. The majority of devices were inserted for a cosmetic indication (85.2%). In general, patient, device, and surgery characteristics differed per indication group. Substantial variation was seen in the use of infection control measures (range 0-100%).Conclusion: Preliminary results obtained from DBIR show high national participation rates and support further developments toward the improvement of breast implant surgery and patient safety. (C) 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons.

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the reoperation rate and what factors are associated with reoperation of proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint fractures. Methods: We identified 161 surgically treated PIP joint fractures between 2004 and 2015 at 2 academic medical systems. Demographic, injury, radiographic, and treatment data that might be associated with reoperation were collected. Bivariate analysis was performed. Factors identified during bivariate analysis with a P < .10 were entered into a multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: Of the 161 fingers, 25 underwent revision surgery. Open fracture was independently associated with revision surgery. The most common indication for reoperation was joint stiffness (35%). In a subanalysis of 111 closed fractures, no factors were associated with revision surgery. Conclusions: Soft tissue injury is a major factor in reoperation after PIP joint fracture dislocation. Specific attention should be paid to persistent subluxation because this may predispose to early arthrosis.

Background: The Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) was established in April of 2015 and currently contains information on 38,000 implants in 18,000 women. As a clinical registry, it evaluates the quality of breast implant surgery, including adverse events such as breast implant-associated (BIA) anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). To examine the efficacy of the DBIR, the capture rate of BIA-ALCL was compared to the registration of BIA-ALCL in the Dutch Nationwide Network and Registry of Histo-and Cytopathology (PALGA) as a gold standard, in combination with matching these databases to obtain complementary information.Methods: All BIA-ALCL patients diagnosed and registered in The Netherlands in 2016 and 2017 were identified separately in the PALGA and DBIR databases. In addition, both databases were matched using indirect key identifiers. Pathologic information from the PALGA and clinical and device characteristics from the DBIR were obtained for all patients.Results: Matching of both databases gave a capture rate of BIA-ALCL in the DBIR of 100 percent (n = 6) in 2016 and 70 percent (n = 7) in 2017. In total, 17 patients were identified in the PALGA, of which 14 patients were also identified in the DBIR; three patients were not registered; and 10 patients were registered false-positive. Of all confirmed patients, symptoms, staging results, treatment, and implant information were registered.Conclusions: Currently, the DBIR contains 2 full registration years and captures most of the BIA-ALCL patients despite overestimation. Therefore, pathology confirmation remains essential. By matching these databases, complementary clinical and implant information could be retrieved, establishing the DBIR as an essential postmarketing surveillance system for health risk assessments.

In recent years, there is an increasing focus on the delivery of high-quality care in a cost-efficient fashion. A key strategy in improving practice is gaining insight in outcome differences. We present a simple and quick method of quality auditing in a local practice, aiming to start a discussion between surgeons and reduce complication rates by improving protocols. Patients who underwent breast reconstruction with implants were evaluated on explantation rate within 60 days of insertion. Patients were traced using administrative data. Results were compared during yearly audits between 2014 and 2017. Each year, a meeting was held in which the data of all surgeons were compared using funnel plots in a semi-anonymous manner. At baseline, 6.1% (15/244) of all implants and 9.9% (9/91) of all tissue expanders had to be explanted, mainly due to infection (60.0% and 77.8%, resp.). Discussion at the audit led to the implementation of an anti-infection protocol. In the following years, explantation rates decreased to 3.8% (8/208) and 7.8% (8/102) in 2015 (infection 55.6% and 63%), and 3.4% (6/176) and 3.1% (2/64) in 2017 (infection 50% and 100%) and in 2016. Audit feedback and the subsequent discussion about the causes of inter-surgeon differences led to a change in practice protocols for breast implant surgery and a reduction of breast implant explantation in our center. Level of Evidence: Level III, risk / prognostic study

Introduction: The British Orthopedic Association (BOA) and British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) updated the evidence-based guidelines for the treatment and care of open lower limb fractures (BOAST 4). Following this, a Dutch version has been developed. The main points are multidisciplinary care, planning, and treatment of these injuries. Early osteosynthesis (within 7–14 days) combined with soft-tissue coverage results in more efficient care and less complications. Aim: To study the variation in treatment and thoughts among trauma, orthopedic, and plastic surgeons. Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional study 94 surgeons (57 trauma, 23 plastic, and 14 orthopedic surgeons) working at 46 centers completed an online questionnaire, consisting of 5 demographic, 14 hospital-related, 8 BOAST 4-related, and 2 centralization-related questions. Results: There was a strong agreement among surgeons about the best moment for multidisciplinary consultation, which was before initial debridement, while in practice, this often does not occur. All surgeons agreed that the initial debridement should be performed immediately by any surgeon, but not solely by trainees. Plastic surgeons responded that the definitive stabilization and wound cover should not exceed 7 days, while half of the trauma and orthopedic surgeons agreed that it should not exceed 14 days. Finally, most surgeons agreed that Gustilo 3 fractures should be centralized. However, there was disagreement on the need for centralization of Gustilo 2 fractures. Discussion: Surgeons agree on better and earlier multidisciplinary treatment of open lower limb fractures and the centralization of Gustilo 3 fractures.

Background The aim was to evaluate the cost-utility of four common surgical treatment pathways for breast cancer: mastectomy, breast-conserving therapy (BCT), implant breast reconstruction (BR) and autologous-BR. Methods Patient-level healthcare consumption data and results of a large quality of life (QoL) study from five Dutch hospitals were combined. The cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of incremental costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year follow-up period. Costs were assessed from a healthcare provider perspective. Results BCT resulted in comparable QoL with lower costs compared to implant-BR and autologous-BR and showed better QoL with higher costs than mastectomy (€17,246/QALY). QoL outcomes and costs of especially autologous-BR were affected by the relatively high occurrence of complications. If reconstruction following mastectomy was performed, implant-BR was more cost-effective than autologous-BR. Conclusion The occurrence of complications had a substantial effect on costs and QoL outcomes of different surgical pathways for breast cancer. When this was taken into account, BCT was most the cost-effective treatment. Even with higher costs and a higher risk of complications, implant-BR and autologous-BR remained cost-effective over mastectomy. This pleas for adapting surgical pathways to individual patient preferences in the trade-off between the risks of complications and expected outcomes.

We describe the development of the Research Agenda of the Dutch Society for Plastic Surgery, supported and democratically created by plastic surgeons, patients, and other stakeholders. The agenda contains the 10 most relevant knowledge gaps encountered in clinical practice, as prioritized by the abovementioned groups. The aim is to stimulate national collaborations and research networks to initiate trials to answer these knowledge gaps. The agenda will be renewed periodically to stay relevant. We encourage other national and international associations to develop a research agenda within their field, and intensify their research network and improve research quality.

Breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a very rare type of T-cell lymphoma that is uniquely caused by a single environmental stimulus. Here, we present a comprehensive genetic analysis of a relatively large series of BIA-ALCL (n = 29), for which genome-wide chromosomal copy number aberrations (CNAs) and mutational profiles for a subset (n = 7) were determined. For comparison, CNAs for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)− nodal anaplastic large cell lymphomas (ALCLs; n = 24) were obtained. CNAs were detected in 94% of BIA-ALCLs, with losses at chromosome 20q13.13 in 66% of the samples. Loss of 20q13.13 is characteristic of BIA-ALCL compared with other classes of ALCL, such as primary cutaneous ALCL and systemic type ALK+ and ALK− ALCL. Mutational patterns confirm that the interleukin-6–JAK1–STAT3 pathway is deregulated. Although this is commonly observed across various types of T-cell lymphomas, the extent of deregulation is significantly higher in BIA-ALCL, as indicated by phosphorylated STAT3 immunohistochemistry. The characteristic loss of chromosome 20 in BIA-ALCL provides further justification to recognize BIA-ALCL as a separate disease entity. Moreover, CNA analysis may serve as a parameter for future diagnostic assays for women with breast implants to distinguish seroma caused by BIA-ALCL from other causes of seroma accumulation, such as infection or trauma.

Background: Differences in quality-of-life outcomes after different surgical breast cancer treatment options, including breast reconstruction, are relevant for counseling individual patients in clinical decision-making, and for (societal) evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analyses. However, current literature shows contradictory results, because of use of different patient-reported outcome measures and study designs with limited patient numbers. The authors set out to improve this evidence using patient-reported outcome measures in a large, cross-sectional study for different surgical breast cancer treatment options. Methods: Quality of life was assessed through the EQ-5D-5L, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 and BR23, and the BREAST-Q. Patients with different treatments were compared after propensity-weighted adjustment of pretreatment differences. The EQ-5D was used to value the effect of surgical complications. Results: A total of 1871 breast cancer patients participated (breast-conserving surgery, n = 615; mastectomy, n = 507; autologous reconstruction, n = 330; and implant-based reconstruction, n = 419). Mastectomy patients reported the lowest EQ-5D score (mastectomy, 0.805, breast-conserving surgery, 0.844; autologous reconstruction, 0.849; and implant-based reconstruction, 0.850) and functioning scores of the C30 questionnaire. On the BREAST-Q, autologous reconstruction patients had higher mean Satisfaction with Outcome, Satisfaction with Breasts, and Sexual Well-being scores than implant-based reconstruction patients. Complications in autologous reconstruction patients resulted in a substantially lower quality of life than in implant-based reconstruction patients. Conclusions: This study shows the added value of breast conservation and reconstruction compared with mastectomy; however, differences among breastconserving surgery, implant-based reconstruction, and autologous breast reconstruction were subtle. Complications resulted in poorer health-related quality of life. (Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 146: 1, 2020.)

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Previous research has highlighted the gender-based disparities present throughout the field of surgery. This study aims to evaluate the breadth of the issues facing women in plastic surgery, worldwide. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was undertaken from October of 2016 to January of 2017, with no restrictions on date or language. A narrative synthesis of the literature according to themed issues was developed, together with a summary of relevant numeric data. RESULTS: From the 2247 articles identified, 55 articles were included in the analysis. The majority of articles were published from the United States. Eight themes were identified, as follows: (1) workforce figures; (2) gender bias and discrimination; (3) leadership and academia; (4) mentorship and role models; (5) pregnancy, parenting, and childcare; (6) relationships, work-life balance, and professional satisfaction; (7) patient/public preference; and (8) retirement and financial planning. Despite improvement in numbers over time, women plastic surgeons continue to be underrepresented in the United States, Canada, and Europe, with prevalence ranging from 14 to 25.7 percent. Academic plastic surgeons are less frequently female than male, and women academic plastic surgeons score less favorably when outcomes of academic success are evaluated. Finally, there has been a shift away from overt discrimination toward a more ingrained, implicit bias, and most published cases of bias and discrimination are in association with pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: The first step toward addressing the issues facing women plastic surgeons is recognition and articulation of the issues. Further research may focus on analyzing geographic variation in the issues and developing appropriate interventions.

The Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) was requested by the European Commission (EC) to provide a scientific opinion on the safety of breast implants in relation to anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). There are several types of textured breast implants; surface textures of breast implants are not all manufactured in the same way, and breast implants with diverse surface textures may also present different benefits. The magnitude of the risk per type of textured implant is difficult to establish due to the low incidence of the breast implants associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Therefore, risk assessments per implant type are needed. Overall SCHEER considers that there is a moderate weight of evidence for a causal relationship between textured breast implants and BIA-ALCL, particularly in relation to implants with an intermediate to high surface roughness.The pathogenic mechanisms are not fully elucidated; current hypotheses include genetic drivers, chronic inflammation resulting either from bacterial contamination, shell shedding of particulates, or shell surface characteristics leading to friction, or by implant associated reactive compounds. Reporting of new BIA-ALCL cases by the national clinical registries is critically important to obtain a better estimate of the risk of BIA-ALCL for patients with a breast implant.

This article describes the formation of the International Confederation of Plastic Surgery Societies (ICOPLAST) as a novel, transparent, dynamic, and proactive confederation of national plastic surgery societies. ICOPLAST aspires to provide a voice for the entire international community of plastic surgeons. ICOPLAST has been designed to benefit the patient, plastic surgery as a profession, and each individual plastic surgeon. Its principal objective is to enhance international communication, education, and advocacy processes to ultimately improve patient outcomes for plastic surgery patients globally. The new ICOPLAST's focus is to add true value for patients. ICOPLAST's evolution, philosophy, governance, and bylaws are explained and all societies worldwide are encouraged and cordially invited to join. An open and warm invitation is provided. Additional information is found at www.ICOPLAST.org.

Item does not contain fulltext BACKGROUND: Although approximately 57% of breast cancer (BC) diagnoses are in older patients (>60 years), only 4.1-14% receives breast reconstruction (BR). This has been attributed to physician concerns about operative complications. This paper aims to: 1) analyze the 30-day complication rates in the older patient population undergoing immediate breast reconstruction (IBR); and 2) analyze links between complication type and category of reconstruction. METHODS: Using the ACS-NSQIP database (2005-2014), all women older than 60 years of age diagnosed with BC and DCIS were identified. IBR and complication rates were plotted for all ages. Patients were divided into those with and those without complications. Patient demographics and co-morbidities were compared. Complications within each type of reconstruction were analyzed. RESULTS: Of the 4450 BC and 1104 DCIS patients, 22.3% (BC) and 20.9% (DCIS) had complications. IBR decreased significantly with increased age (P < 0.00 in both cohorts), while complication rates remained stable across all ages (P = 0.32 in BC, P = 0.69 in DCIS patients). Patients were well matched in terms of demographics. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of breast reconstruction decrease with increasing age. Despite increasing age, associated complication rates in IBR patients remained stable.

An estimated 1-3% of all women in the Netherlands carry breast implants. Since the introduction five decades ago, problems with a variety of breast implants have emerged with direct consequences for the patients' health. Plastic surgeons worldwide reacted through campaigning for auditing on long-term implant quality, surgeon performance, and institutional outcomes in implant registries. Especially, the PIP implant scandal of 2010 demonstrated the paucity of epidemiological data and uncovered a weakness in our ability to even 'track and trace' patients. In addition, a recent report of the Dutch Institute of National Health showed a lack of compliance of 100% of breast implant producers to CE requirements. These arguments stress the need for an independent implant registry.Insufficient capture rates or dependence from the implant producers made the variety of national and international patient registries unreliable. The Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) is unique because it is an opt-out registry without the need for informed consent and thus a high capture rate. Furthermore, an estimated 95% of breast implants are implanted by board-certified plastic surgeons. Funding was received from a non-governmental organisation to increase the quality of health care in the Netherlands, and maintenance is gathered by 25 euros per implant inserted.This article describes the way the Dutch have set up their system, with special attention to the well-known hurdles of starting a patient registry. Examples include: funding, medical ethical issues, opt out system, benchmarking, quality assurance as well as governance and collaboration. The Dutch consider their experience and data shareware for others to be used globally to the benefit of patient safety and quality improvement. (C) 2017 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.