Search

Background Prophylactic lymphatic bypass or LYMPHA (LYmphatic Microsurgical Preventive Healing Approach) is increasingly offered to prevent lymphedema following breast cancer treatment, which develops in up to 47% of patients. Previous studies focused on intraoperative and postoperative lymphedema risk factors, which are often unknown preoperatively when the decision to perform LYMPHA is made. This study aims to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors in the high-risk inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) population. Methods Retrospective review of our institution's IBC program database was conducted. The primary outcome was self-reported lymphedema development. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify preoperative lymphedema risk factors, while controlling for number of lymph nodes removed during axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), number of positive lymph nodes, residual disease on pathology, and need for adjuvant chemotherapy. Results Of 356 patients with IBC, 134 (mean age: 51 years, range: 22–89 years) had complete data. All 134 patients underwent surgery and radiation. Forty-seven percent of all 356 patients (167/356) developed lymphedema. Obesity (body mass index > 30) (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7, confidence interval [CI]: 1.2–6.4, p = 0.02) and non-white race (OR: 4.5, CI: 1.2–23, p = 0.04) were preoperative lymphedema risk factors. Conclusion Patients with IBC are high risk for developing lymphedema due to the need for ALND, radiation, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This study also identified non-white race and obesity as risk factors. Larger prospective studies should evaluate potential racial disparities in lymphedema development. Due to the high prevalence of lymphedema, LYMPHA should be considered for all patients with IBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Optimal reduction mammoplasty techniques to treat patients with gigantomastia have been debated and can involve extended pedicles (EP) or free nipple grafts (FNG). Objectives The authors compared clinical, patient-reported, and aesthetic outcomes associated with reduction mammoplasty employing EP vs FNG. Methods A multi-institutional, retrospective study of adult patients with gigantomastia who underwent reduction mammoplasty at 2 tertiary care centers from 2017 to 2020 was performed. Gigantomastia was defined as reduction weight >1500 g per breast or sternal notch-to-nipple distance ≥40 cm. Surgeons at 1 institution employed the EP technique, whereas those at the other utilized FNG. Baseline characteristics, preoperative and postoperative BREAST-Q, and clinical outcomes were collected. Aesthetic outcomes were assessed in 1:1 propensity score-matched cases across techniques. Preoperative and postoperative photographs were provided to reviewers across the academic plastic surgery continuum (students to faculty) and non-medical individuals to evaluate aesthetic outcomes. Results Fifty-two patients met the inclusion criteria (21 FNG, 31 EP). FNG patients had a higher incidence of postoperative cellulitis (23% vs 0%, P < 0.05) but no other differences in surgical or medical complications. Baseline BREAST-Q scores did not differ between groups. Postoperative BREAST-Q scores revealed greater satisfaction with the EP technique (P < 0.01). The aesthetic assessment of outcomes in 14 matched pairs of patients found significantly better aesthetic outcomes in all domains with the EP procedure (P < 0.05), independent of institution or surgical experience. Conclusions This multi-institutional study suggests that, compared with FNG, the EP technique for reduction mammoplasty provides superior clinical, patient-reported, and aesthetic outcomes for patients with gigantomastia. Level of Evidence: 4 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Computer-aided surgical simulation (CASS) has redefined surgery, improved precision and reduced the reliance on intraoperative trial-and-error manipulations. CASS is provided by third-party services; however, it may be cost-effective for some hospitals to develop in-house programs. This study provides the first cost analysis comparison among traditional (no CASS), commercial CASS, and in-house CASS for head and neck reconstruction. Methods The costs of three-dimensional (3D) pre-operative planning for mandibular and maxillary reconstructions were obtained from an in-house CASS program at our large tertiary care hospital in Northern Virginia, as well as a commercial provider (Synthes, Paoli, PA). A cost comparison was performed among these modalities and extrapolated in-house CASS costs were derived. The calculations were based on estimated CASS use with cost structures similar to our institution and sunk costs were amortized over 10 years. Results Average operating room time was estimated at 10 hours, with an average of 2 hours saved with CASS. The hourly cost to the hospital for the operating room (including anesthesia and other ancillary costs) was estimated at $4,614/hour. Per case, traditional cases were $46,140, commercial CASS cases were $40,951, and inhouse CASS cases were $38,212. Annual in-house CASS costs were $39,590. Conclusions CASS reduced operating room time, likely due to improved efficiency and accuracy. Our data demonstrate that hospitals with similar cost structure as ours, performing greater than 27 cases of 3D head and neck reconstructions per year can see a financial benefit from developing an in-house CASS program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]