Search

A growing number of studies demonstrate the benefits of 3D printing in improving surgical efficiency and subsequently clinical outcomes. However, the number of studies evaluating the accuracy of 3D printing techniques remains scarce. All publications appraising the accuracy of 3D printing between 1950 and 2018 were reviewed using well-established databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Embase. An in vivo validation study of our 3D printing technique was undertaken using unprocessed chicken radius bones (Gallus gallus domesticus). Calculating its maximum length, we compared the measurements from computed tomography (CT) scans (CT group), image segmentation (SEG group) and 3D-printed (3DP) models (3DP group). Twenty-eight comparison studies in 19 papers have been identified. Published mean error of CT-based 3D printing techniques were 0.46 mm (1.06%) in stereolithography, 1.05 mm (1.78%) in binder jet technology, 0.72 mm (0.82%) in PolyJet technique, 0.20 mm (0.95%) in fused filament fabrication (FFF) and 0.72 mm (1.25%) in selective laser sintering (SLS). In the current in vivo validation study, mean errors were 0.34 mm (0.86%) in CT group, 1.02 mm (2.51%) in SEG group and 1.16 mm (2.84%) in 3DP group. Our Peninsula 3D printing technique using a FFF 3D printer thus produced accuracy similar to the published studies (1.16 mm, 2.84%). There was a statistically significant difference (P

We review the current literature for validated patient related outcome measures (PROM) in breast augmentation mammoplasty (BAM). Using Medline search between 1966 to 2018, using the search strategy ("patient reported outcome measure" OR "surveys or questionnaires") AND "breast" AND ("augment" OR "implant") was performed. A manual search with Google Scholar using the search term "Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Bilateral Augmentation Mammaplasty" was also performed. Once the search yielded its results, a further search of bibliographic references within the articles was also performed. The Medline computer search produced 72 results, with a Google Scholar search yielding two results and a bibliographic search of all articles revealing a further single result. Ten studies were included as they used validated PROM. Three articles used the same PROM (Breast-Q) and seven used different PROM, therefore 8 validated PROM were discovered. Bilateral augmentation mammoplasty has been demonstrated to confer an increase in patient reported outcomes in domains of satisfaction with breasts and psychological well-being. There is some decrease in physical well-being following this procedure. Validated PROMs provide objective data relating to different aspects of BAM. Combined with traditional surgeon-based outcome measures and implant registry data, they may provide a more comprehensive insight into the patient journey.

Breast reconstruction surgery after mastectomy has demonstrated positive psychological benefits, and is reflected in the number of patients undergoing the procedure, rising from 26.94% of patients after mastectomy in 2005, to 43.30% in 2014. Most of this is attributable to implant and expander-based reconstruction, with the rate of free flaps only increasing from 1.25% to 3.96% in this time period. Increasingly, breast cancer patients have higher survival rates. There is now an emphasis on Value Based Health Care (VBHC), which focusses on outcomes, and that can be measured by Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). To date, there has been no systematic review to analyse PROMs between those undergoing autologous or alloplastic reconstruction, using validated measurement tools, to determine if there is a preferred technique from the patient's perspective. We performed a systematic search on EMBASE, and together with bibliographic linkage, identified 146 articles. After screening and assessment of articles through abstract, and full article appraisal, 13 were identified suitable for inclusion in this systematic review. Using BREAST-Q, satisfaction of breast and psychosocial well-being were rated highly by the autologous group when compared to implant-based reconstruction. Physical well-being was less significant, with the least significant difference noted for sexual well-being. EORTC-QLQ-BR23/C30 PROMs noted similar trends. SF-36 however, noted virtually no difference between the two methods of reconstruction regarding similar PROM quality of life (QoL) domains. From the patient perspective, autologous reconstruction is either equal to or superior to implant-based reconstruction, and should be offered to all patients.

BACKGROUND: Modern imaging technologies, such as computed tomographic angiography (CTA), can be useful for preoperative assessment in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) flap surgery. Planning perforator flap design can lead to improved surgical efficiency. However, current imaging modalities are limited by being displayed on a two-dimensional (2D) surface. In contrast, a 3D-printed model provides tactile feedback that facilitates superior understanding. Hence, we have 3D-printed patient-specific deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) templates, in an affordable and convenient manner, for preoperative planning. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients undergoing 25 immediate or delayed post-mastectomy autologous breast reconstruction with DIEP or muscle-sparing transverse rectus abdominis (MS-TRAM) flaps are recruited prospectively. Using free, open-source softwares (3D Slicer, Autodesk MeshMixer, and Cura) and desktop 3D printers (Ultimaker 3E and Moment), we created a template based on a patient’s abdominal wall anatomy from CTA, with holes and lines indicating the position of perforators, their intramuscular course and the DIEA pedicle. RESULTS: The mean age of patients was 52 [38–67]. There were 15 immediate and 10 delayed reconstructions. 3D printing time took mean 18 hours and 123.7 g of plastic filament, which calculates to a mean material cost of AUD 8.25. DIEP templates accurately identified the perforators and reduced intraoperative perforator identification by 7.29 minutes (P=0.02). However, the intramuscular dissection time was not affected (P=0.34). Surgeons found the template useful for preoperative marking (8.6/10) and planning (7.9/10), but not for intramuscular dissection (5.9/10). There were no immediate flap-related complications. CONCLUSIONS: Our 3D-printed, patient-specific DIEP template is accurate, significantly reduces intraoperative perforator identification time and, hence, may be a useful tool for preoperative planning in autologous breast reconstruction.

A growing number of studies demonstrate the benefits of 3D printing in improving surgical efficiency and subsequently clinical outcomes. However, the number of studies evaluating the accuracy of 3D printing techniques remains scarce. All publications appraising the accuracy of 3D printing between 1950 and 2018 were reviewed using well-established databases, including PubMed, Medline, Web of Science and Embase. An in vivo validation study of our 3D printing technique was undertaken using unprocessed chicken radius bones (Gallus gallus domesticus). Calculating its maximum length, we compared the measurements from computed tomography (CT) scans (CT group), image segmentation (SEG group) and 3D-printed (3DP) models (3DP group). Twenty-eight comparison studies in 19 papers have been identified. Published mean error of CT-based 3D printing techniques were 0.46 mm (1.06%) in stereolithography, 1.05 mm (1.78%) in binder jet technology, 0.72 mm (0.82%) in PolyJet technique, 0.20 mm (0.95%) in fused filament fabrication (FFF) and 0.72 mm (1.25%) in selective laser sintering (SLS). In the current in vivo validation study, mean errors were 0.34 mm (0.86%) in CT group, 1.02 mm (2.51%) in SEG group and 1.16 mm (2.84%) in 3DP group. Our Peninsula 3D printing technique using a FFF 3D printer thus produced accuracy similar to the published studies (1.16 mm, 2.84%). There was a statistically significant difference (P

The cornerstone of reconstructive surgery following mastectomy is to restore cosmesis and improve physical and psychological health. Consequently, it has become essential for instruments that measure surgical outcomes to include the direct perspective of patients. Many reviews have failed to show significant improvements in quality of life domains following breast reconstruction compared to mastectomy alone. However, with advances in surgical techniques and patient reported outcome measure (PROM) assessment tools designed precisely for breast reconstruction patients, a modern systematic review is warranted. An electronic literature review was performed using CINAHL, Cochrane Library and Medline (using PubMed) comparing patient reported outcome measures of patients undergoing mastectomy alone versus patients undergoing mastectomy with breast reconstruction. Studies in the English and Portuguese languages since the year 2000 were included. The review was undertaken adhering to PRISMA guidelines with last entry on the 31/5/2018. Full text review yield 42 articles of relevance to the inclusion criteria. The most widely used PROM instruments such as Breast-Q, EORTC-Q30/Q23, Short Form 36, FACT-B and others are explored. The specific difficulties conducting such studies and biases identified are investigated further. Studies comparing mastectomy alone against mastectomy with reconstruction show difficulties forming groups with similar clinical and epidemiological characteristics. There are inherent limitations to performing a randomised controlled trial on this topic, including matching patient groups in terms of age, socioeconomical background and cancer staging, and this affects the results of the PROM instruments. Within these limitations, the literature suggests that PROM support the use of breast reconstruction following mastectomy but care must be made selecting patients. The finding is supported by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines which state that breast reconstruction should be offered to all women undergoing breast cancer surgery.

Process mapping has been identified as a strategy to improve surgical efficiency but has been inconsistently applied in the literature and underutilised in surgical practice. In this journal, we recently described our utilisation of these approaches when applied to breast reconstruction. We showed that in surgery as complex as autologous breast reconstruction, process mapping can improve efficiency, and may improve surgical teaching, education and audit. The intraoperative period specifically is an area that can be applied not only to breast reconstruction, but to a much broader range of surgical procedures. A systematic review was undertaken of the databases Ovid MEDLINE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Embase and PsychINFO. Manual searching of the references from articles identified was also conducted. Data items relating to the review aims were extracted from articles' methods, applications, and outcomes. A descriptive analysis was carried out to synthesise the information on the current usage of process mapping in the intraoperative period. Seventeen of 1,488 studies were eligible for review, with all of non-randomised study design. Studies had overlap in components of the intraoperative period to which process mapping was applied. Common areas of improvement were identified. Outcome measures were assessed in ten studies that implemented interventions based on the improvement areas to increase surgical efficiency. As such, process mapping has been used as part of larger quality improvement methods, albeit with inconsistent nomenclature, to improve surgical efficiency. While it has been applied to a range of surgical specialties, there is a lack of application to the surgical component of the intraoperative period. Greater consistency in the reporting and description of process mapping will enable further research for evidence of its benefits.

[This corrects the article on p. 99 in vol. 5, PMID: 27047778.].

Despite 82% of patients reporting psychosocial improvement following breast reconstruction, only 33% patients choose to undergo surgery. Implant reconstruction outnumbers autologous reconstruction in many centres.A systematic review of the literature was undertaken. Inclusion required: (I) Meta-analyses or review articles; (II) adult patients aged 18 years or over undergoing alloplastic breast reconstruction; (III) studies including outcome measures; (IV) case series with more than 10 patients; (V) English language; and (VI) publication after 1(st) January, 2000.After full text review, analysis and data extraction was conducted for a total of 63 articles. Definitive reconstruction with an implant can be immediate or delayed. Older patients have similar or even lower complication rates to younger patients. Complications include capsular contracture, hematoma and infection. Obesity, smoking, large breasts, diabetes and higher grade tumors are associated with increased risk of wound problems and reconstructive failure. Silicone implant patients have higher capsular contracture rates but have higher physical and psychosocial function. There were no associations made between silicone implants and cancer or systemic disease. There were no differences in outcomes or complications between round and shaped implants. Textured implants have a lower risk of capsular contracture than smooth implants. Smooth implants are more likely to be displaced as well as having higher rates of infection. Immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) gives the best aesthetic outcome if radiotherapy is not required but has a higher rate of capsular contracture and implant failure. Delayed-immediate reconstruction patients can achieve similar aesthetic results to IBR whilst preserving the breast skin if radiotherapy is required. Delayed breast reconstruction (DBR) patients have fewer complications than IBR patients.Implant reconstruction is a safe and popular mode of post-mastectomy reconstruction. Evidence exists for the settings in which complications are more likely, and we can now more reliably predict outcomes of reconstruction on an individual basis and assess patient suitability.

Computed tomographic (CT) angiography (CTA) is widely considered the gold standard imaging modality for preoperative planning autologous breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric artery (DIEA) perforator (DIEP) flap. Improved anatomical understanding from CTA has translated to enhanced clinical outcomes. To achieve this, the use of appropriate CT hardware and software is vital. Various CT scanners and contrast materials have been demonstrated to consistently produce adequate scan data. However, the availability of affordable and easily accessible imaging software capable of generating 3D volume-rendered perforator images to clinically useful quality has been lacking. Osirix (Pixmeo, Geneva, Switzerland) is a free, readily available medical image processing software that shows promise. We have previously demonstrated in a case report the usefulness of Osirix in localizing perforators and their course.In the current case series of 50 consecutive CTA scans, we compare the accuracy of Osirix to a commonly used proprietary 3D imaging software, Siemens Syngo InSpace 4D (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany), in identifying perforator number and location. Moreover, we compared both programs to intraoperative findings.We report a high rate of concordance with Osirix and Siemens Syngo InSpace 4D (99.6%). Both programs correlated closely with operative findings (92.2%). Most of the discrepancies were found in the lateral row perforators (90%).In the current study, we report the accuracy of Osirix that is comparable to Siemens Syngo InSpace 4D, a proprietary software, in mapping perforators. However, it provides an added advantage of being free, easy-to-use, portable, and potentially a superior quality of 3D reconstructed image.

Accurate volumetric analysis is an essential component of preoperative planning in both reconstructive and aesthetic breast procedures towards achieving symmetrization and patient-satisfactory outcome. Numerous comparative studies and reviews of individual techniques have been reported. However, a unifying review of all techniques comparing their accuracy, reliability, and practicality has been lacking.A review of the published English literature dating from 1950 to 2015 using databases, such as PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE, was undertaken.Since Bouman's first description of water displacement method, a range of volumetric assessment techniques have been described: thermoplastic casting, direct anthropomorphic measurement, two-dimensional (2D) imaging, and computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. However, most have been unreliable, difficult to execute and demonstrate limited practicability. Introduction of 3D surface imaging has revolutionized the field due to its ease of use, fast speed, accuracy, and reliability. However, its widespread use has been limited by its high cost and lack of high level of evidence. Recent developments have unveiled the first web-based 3D surface imaging program, 4D imaging, and 3D printing.Despite its importance, an accurate, reliable, and simple breast volumetric analysis tool has been elusive until the introduction of 3D surface imaging technology. However, its high cost has limited its wide usage. Novel adjunct technologies, such as web-based 3D surface imaging program, 4D imaging, and 3D printing, appear promising.

There has been an increasing role of acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) and synthetic meshes in both single- and two-stage implant/expander breast reconstruction. Numerous alloplastic adjuncts exist, and these vary in material type, processing, storage, surgical preparation, level of sterility, available sizes and cost. However, there is little published data on most, posing a significant challenge to the reconstructive surgeon trying to compare and select the most suitable product. The aims of this systematic review were to identify, summarize and evaluate the outcomes of studies describing the use of alloplastic adjuncts for post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. The secondary aims were to determine their cost-effectiveness and analyze outcomes in patients who also underwent radiotherapy.Using the PRSIMA 2009 statement, a systematic review was conducted to find articles reporting on the outcomes on the use of alloplastic adjuncts in post-mastectomy breast reconstruction. Multiple databases were searched independently by three authors (Cabalag MS, Miller GS and Chae MP), including: Ovid MEDLINE (1950 to present), Embase (1980 to 2015), PubMed and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Current published literature on available alloplastic adjuncts are predominantly centered on ADMs, both allogeneic and xenogeneic, with few outcome studies available for synthetic meshes. Outcomes on the 89 articles, which met the inclusion criteria, were summarized and analyzed. The reported outcomes on alloplastic adjunct-assisted breast reconstruction were varied, with most data available on the use of ADMs, particularly AlloDerm(®) (LifeCell, Branchburg, New Jersey, USA). The use of ADMs in single-stage direct-to-implant breast reconstruction resulted in lower complication rates (infection, seroma, implant loss and late revision), and was more cost effective when compared to non-ADM, two-stage reconstruction. The majority of studies demonstrated inferior outcomes in ADM assisted, two-stage expander-to-implant reconstruction compared to non-ADM use. Multiple studies suggest that the use of ADMs results in a reduction of capsular contracture rates. Additionally, the reported beneficial effects of ADM use in irradiated tissue were varied.ADM assisted two-stage breast reconstruction was associated with inferior outcomes when compared to non-ADM use. However, alloplastic adjuncts may have a role in single stage, direct-to-implant breast reconstruction. Published evidence comparing the long-term outcomes between the different types of adjuncts is lacking, and further level one studies are required to identify the ideal product.

The high incidence of breast cancer and growing number of breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy has led to breast reconstruction becoming an important part of holistic treatment for these patients. In planning autologous reconstructions, preoperative assessment of donor site microvascular anatomy with advanced imaging modalities has assisted in the appropriate selection of flap donor site, individual perforators, and lead to an overall improvement in flap outcomes. In this review, we compare the accuracy of fluorescent angiography, computed tomographic angiography (CTA), and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and their impact on clinical outcomes.A review of the published English literature dating from 1950 to 2015 using databases, such as PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, and EMBASE was undertaken.Fluorescent angiography is technically limited by its inability to evaluate deep-lying perforators and hence, it has a minimal role in the preoperative setting. However, it may be useful intraoperatively in evaluating microvascular anastomotic patency and the mastectomy skin perfusion. CTA is currently widely considered the standard, due to its high accuracy and reliability. Multiple studies have demonstrated its ability to improve clinical outcomes, such as operative length and flap complications. However, concerns surrounding exposure to radiation and nephrotoxic contrast agents exist. MRA has been explored, however despite recent advances, the image quality of MRA is considered inferior to CTA.Preoperative imaging is an essential component in planning autologous breast reconstruction. Fluorescent angiography presents minimal role as a preoperative imaging modality, but may be a useful intraoperative adjunct to assess the anastomosis and the mastectomy skin perfusion. Currently, CTA is the gold standard preoperatively. MRA has a role, particularly for women of younger age, iodine allergy, and renal impairment.