Search

Acute pain after mastectomy is increased with concurrent breast reconstruction. One postulated advantage of prepectoral breast reconstruction is less postoperative pain; however, no comparisons to partial submuscular reconstruction have been made to date. Here, we examined the postoperative pain experienced between patients with prepectoral and subpectoral breast reconstruction after mastectomy.We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction with tissue expanders from 2012 to 2019 by a single plastic surgeon. Patient demographics, surgical details, and anesthetic techniques were evaluated, and our primary outcome compared postoperative opioid usage between prepectoral and subpectoral reconstructions. Our secondary outcome compared pain scores between techniques.A total of 211 subpectoral and 117 prepectoral reconstruction patients were included for analysis. Patients with subpectoral reconstructions had higher postoperative opioid usage (80.0 vs 45.0 oral morphine equivalents, P0.001). Subpectoral patients also recorded higher maximum pain scores compared with prepectoral reconstructions while admitted (7 of 10 vs 5 of 10, P0.004). Multivariable linear regression suggests that mastectomy type and subpectoral reconstruction were significant contributors to postoperative opioid use (P0.05).Prepectoral breast reconstruction was associated with less postoperative opioid consumption and lower postoperative pain scores as compared with subpectoral reconstruction, when controlling for other surgical and anesthesia factors. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to study how postoperative pain and chronic pain are influenced by the location of prosthesis placement in implant-based postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has forced profound changes on many aspects of American healthcare delivery. Resource utilization and risk minimization have been the primary goals behind these shifts, and adaptations made to optimize public safety continue to affect patients. It is not known, however, how these changes have impacted burn patients. The aim of this study is to detect any effects the pandemic has had on this population by describing the incidence, nature, and short-term outcomes of patients treated by a single surgeon at a major burn center during the area’s shelter-in-place period. Methods A retrospective cohort study was performed using a database of one surgeon’s (RG) admissions and surgical procedures. All patients treated for acute burn injuries within the year following the announcement of COVID-associated shelter-in-place orders in the burn center’s area (March 2020-March 2021) were included. The control group consisted of the same surgeon’s patients treated in the prior year (March 2019-March 2020). All patients were included regardless of age. Patients treated for other conditions such as dermatologic issues or chronic burn sequelae were excluded. Delayed presentation was defined as an interval longer than 24 hours between injury and first medical encounter. Descriptive analyses were performed to compare the demographics, timing of presentation, treatment courses, and short-term outcomes between pre-pandemic and COVID period groups. Results 408 patients were included overall, with 227 admitted pre-COVID and 181 during the pandemic. The only significant difference in demographics between groups was a higher incidence of homelessness in the COVID group (7 vs 13%, p < 0.04). Delayed presentation was not significantly different between groups (15 vs 17%, p=0.75). We found no significant differences between groups in rates of cellulitis or sepsis at presentation (9 vs 10%, p=0.8; 5 vs 8%, p=0.32) or during admission (16 vs 18%, p=0.54; 5 vs 8%, p=0.32). The mean number of surgeries per patient was 2 in both groups. Rates of autografting (62 vs 56%, p=0.24), lengths of stay (16 vs 17 days, p=0.34), readmissions (2 vs 4%, p=0.11), and deaths (2 vs 2%, p=0.74) were also similar. There were several complicated cases of delayed care in the COVID group after burns were evaluated initially via telemedicine, including one patient who presented in septic shock, though this finding did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions Our results demonstrate that the pandemic did not have a significant impact on many key aspects of acute burn care in this cohort. Patients in the pandemic period did not delay treatment at a higher rate, and short-term outcomes were comparable overall between groups. Further studies will be useful in understanding the effect of the pandemic and telemedicine on burn care in a broader context.

INTRODUCTION The combined approach using both an implant and autologous tissue for breast reconstruction has become more common over the last 10 years. We sought to provide a systematic review and outcomes analysis of this technique. METHODS We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library database to identify studies that described implant augmentation of autologous flaps for breast reconstruction. The references of selected articles were also reviewed to identify any additional pertinent articles. RESULTS We identified 11 articles, which included 230 patients and 378 flaps. Implants used ranged in size from 90 to 510 cc, with an average size of 198 cc. Implants were more frequently placed at the time of autologous reconstruction and in the subpectoral plane. There were no total flap losses, and partial flap loss occurred in 3 patients (1%). There were no cases of venous or arterial thrombosis and no early return to the operating room for flap compromise. Eight implants (2%) were lost because of infection or extrusion, and capsular contracture occurred in 9 breasts (3%). When stratified by the timing of implant placement (immediate vs delayed), there were no significant differences in any postoperative outcomes except the immediate group had a higher infection rate. CONCLUSIONS The criteria for women to be candidates for autologous tissue breast reconstruction can be expanded by adding an implant underneath the flap. We found the overall flap loss rate is comparable with standard autologous flap reconstruction, and the implant loss rate is lower than that in patients who undergo prosthetic reconstruction alone.