Search

Background:. As HIV-positive individuals utilizing highly active antiretroviral therapy live longer, the burden of breast cancer increases in the population. Breast reconstruction is an integral aspect of surgical treatment for many patients after a breast cancer diagnosis, prompting this examination of the characteristics and outcomes of breast reconstruction in this growing patient population. Methods:. Using Merative MarketScan Research Databases, a large multipayer database, HIV-positive adult patients who underwent autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction between 2007 and 2021 were identified using International Classification of Disease codes and Common Procedural Terminology codes. In both HIV-positive and -negative cohorts, patient demographics, procedure-related complications, and postoperative revisions were recorded. Shapiro-Wilk, chi-square, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and multivariable logistic regression tests were used for statistical analysis. Results:. Of 173,421 patients who underwent breast reconstruction, 1816 had an HIV diagnosis. HIV-positive patients were younger (P < 0.001), underwent surgery more recently (P < 0.001), more often underwent immediate breast reconstruction (P < 0.001), and had higher comorbidity levels (P < 0.001). There was a regional variation in which the patient cohorts underwent breast reconstruction. There was no significant difference in overall complication rates between patient groups, but HIV-negative patients more often underwent revision procedures (P = 0.009). Conclusions:. When compared to their HIV-negative counterparts, breast reconstruction can be considered safe and efficacious in patients living with HIV. HIV-positive patients are a growing demographic who seek breast reconstruction, and surgeons must continue to further understand the unique implications of breast reconstruction in this population.

Zubair Ahmad,1 Shabina Rahim,1 Jamshid Abdul-Ghafar,2 Qurratulain Chundriger,1 Nasir Ud Din1 1Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan; 2Department of Pathology and Clinical Laboratory, French Medical Institute for Mothers and Children (FMIC), Kabul, AfghanistanCorrespondence: Jamshid Abdul-Ghafar, Department of Pathology and Clinical Laboratory, French Medical Institute for Mothers and Children (FMIC), Kabul, Afghanistan, Tel +93 792 827 287, Email jamshid.jalal@fmic.org.afIntroduction: The 2016 World Health Organization Classification (WHO) of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (CNS) represented a major change. It recommended an “integrated diagnosis” comprising histologic and molecular information facilitating a more precise diagnosis of specific CNS tumors. Its goal was to provide greater diagnostic precision and reproducibility resulting in more clinical relevance and predictive value, ultimately leading to better patient care. Advances in molecular classification, mostly resulting from DNA methylation array profiling of CNS tumors, were occurring at a very rapid pace and required more rapid integration into clinical practice.Methods: cIMPACT-NOW updates and other recent papers plus salient features of 2021 WHO CNS5 in this comprehensive write-up were reviewed.Results: CNS tumor classification needs to be updated at a rapid pace and mechanisms put into place to guide diagnosticians and clinicians in the interim period if major changes in the classification of tumor types came to light. Recognizing the need to integrate these into clinical practice more rapidly and without inordinate delay, the International Society of Neuropathology (ISN) 2016 sponsored an initiative called cIMPACT-NOW.Discussion and/or Conclusion: Goal of cIMPACT-NOW was to provide clarification regarding contentious issues arising in the wake of the 2016 WHO CNS update as well as report new advancements in molecular classification of CNS tumors and new tumor entities emerging as a result of these advancements. cIMPACT-NOW updates: It thus laid the foundation for the 5th edition of the WHO Classification of CNS tumors (2021 WHO CNS 5). We have discussed cIMPACT updates in detail in this review. In addition, molecular diagnostics including DNA methylation-based classification of CNS tumors and the practical use of molecular classification in the prognostication and treatment of CNS tumors is discussed. Finally, the salient features of the new CNS tumor classification are summarized.Keywords: cIMPACT-NOW, DNA-methylation profiling, molecular diagnostics, integrated reporting, hypermutated gliomas

Background:. Infection after implant-based breast reconstruction adversely affects surgical outcomes and increases healthcare utilization. This study aimed to quantify how postimplant breast reconstruction infections impact unplanned reoperations, hospital length of stay, and discontinuation of initially desired breast reconstruction. Methods:. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using Optum’s de-identifed Clinformatics Data Mart Database to analyze women undergoing implant breast reconstruction from 2003 to 2019. Unplanned reoperations were identified via Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Outcomes were analyzed via multivariate linear regression with Poisson distribution to determine statistical significance at P < 0.00625 (Bonferroni correction). Results:. In our national claims-based dataset, post-IBR infection rate was 8.53%. Subsequently, 31.2% patients had an implant removed, 6.9% had an implant replaced, 3.6% underwent autologous salvage, and 20.7% discontinued further reconstruction. Patients with a postoperative infection were significantly associated with increased incidence rate of total reoperations (IRR, 3.11; 95% CI, 2.92–3.31; P < 0.001) and total hospital length of stay (IRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.48–1.63; P < 0.001). Postoperative infections were associated with significantly increased odds of abandoning reconstruction (OR, 2.92; 95% CI, 0.081–0.11; P < 0.001). Conclusions:. Unplanned reoperations impact patients and healthcare systems. This national, claims-level study shows that post-IBR infection was associated with a 3.11× and 1.55× increase in the incidence rate of unplanned reoperations and length of stay. Post-IBR infection was associated with 2.92× increased odds of abandoning further reconstruction after implant removal.

Background:. The introduction of mesh for reinforcement of ventral hernia repair (VHR) led to a significant reduction in hernia recurrence rates. However, it remains controversial whether synthetic or biologic mesh leads to superior outcomes. Recently, hybrid mesh consisting of reinforced biosynthetic ovine rumen (RBOR) has been developed and aims to combine the advantages of biologic and synthetic mesh; however, outcomes after VHR with RBOR have not yet been compared with the standard of care. Methods:. We performed a retrospective analysis on 109 patients, who underwent VHR with RBOR (n = 50) or synthetic polypropylene mesh (n = 59). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, postoperative complications, and recurrence rates were analyzed and compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression models were fit to assess associations of mesh type with overall complications and surgical site occurrence (SSO). Results:. Patients who underwent VHR with RBOR were older (mean age 63.7 versus 58.8 years, P = 0.02) and had a higher rate of renal disease (28.0 versus 10.2%, P = 0.01) compared with patients with synthetic mesh. Despite an unfavorable risk profile, patients with RBOR had lower rates of SSO (16.0 versus 30.5%, P = 0.12) and similar hernia recurrence rates (4.0 versus 6.78%, P = 0.68) compared with patients with synthetic mesh. The use of synthetic mesh was significantly associated with higher odds for overall complications (3.78, P < 0.05) and SSO (3.87, P < 0.05). Conclusion:. Compared with synthetic polypropylene mesh, the use of RBOR for VHR mitigates SSO while maintaining low hernia recurrence rates at 30-month follow-up.