Outcomes Comparison for Microsurgical Breast Reconstruction in Specialty Surgery Hospitals Versus Tertiary Care Facilities

Increased Time Interval of Postoperative Flap Monitoring After Autologous Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Hourly flap checks are the most common means of flap monitoring during the first 24 hours following autologous breast reconstruction (ABR). This practice often requires intensive care unit (ICU) admission, which is a key driver of health care costs and decreased patient satisfaction. This study addresses these issues by demonstrating decreased cost and length of admission associated with a 4-hour interval between flap checks during the first 24 hours following ABR.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of ABR surgeries performed by multiple surgeons from 2017 to 2020. Two cohorts were identified, one that underwent flap checks every hour in the ICU (Q1 cohort) and the other that underwent flap checks every 4 hours on the hospital floor (Q4 cohort). Our primary outcome measures were length of stay (LOS), flap takebacks, flap loss, and encounter cost.

RESULTS

Rates of flap takeback and loss did not differ between cohorts (P = 0.18, P = 0.21). The Q4 cohort's average LOS was shorter than the Q1 cohort (P = 0.002). The Q4 cohort's average cost was also $25,554.80 less than the Q1 cohort (P < 0.001). This association persisted after controlling for LOS, operating room takeback, timing and laterality of reconstruction, and flap configuration (hazard ratio = 0.65, P = 0.0007).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates the benefits of lengthened flap check intervals during the first 24 hours following ABR. These intervals decrease the cost of ABR while also maintaining safety, making ABR a more accessible option for breast reconstruction patients.

Survey of Surgeon-reported Postoperative Protocols for Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap in Breast Reconstruction

Background

The use of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps is a well-established breast reconstruction technique.

Methods

A 29-question survey was e-mailed to 3186 active American Society of Plastic Surgeons members, aiming to describe postoperative monitoring practice patterns among surgeons performing DIEP flaps.

Results

From 255 responses (8%), 79% performing DIEP surgery were analyzed. Among them, 34.8% practiced for more than 20 years, 34.3% for 10-20 years, and 30.9% for less than 10 years. Initial 24-hour post-DIEP monitoring: intensive care unit (39%) and floor (36%). Flap monitoring: external Doppler (71%), tissue oximetry (41%), and implantable Doppler (32%). Postoperative analgesia: acetaminophen (74%), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (69%), neuromodulators (52%), and opioids (4.4%) were administered on a scheduled basis. On postoperative day 1, 61% halt intravenous fluids, 67% allow ambulation, 70% remove Foley catheter, and 71% start diet. Most surgeons discharged patients from the hospital on postoperative day 3+. Regardless of experience, patients were commonly discharged on day 3. Half of the surgeons are in academic/nonacademic settings and discharge on/after day 3.

Conclusions

This study reveals significant heterogeneity among the practice patterns of DIEP surgeons. In light of these findings, it is recommended that a task force be convened to establish standardized monitoring protocols for DIEP flaps. Such protocols have the potential to reduce both the length of hospital stays and overall care costs all while ensuring optimal pain management and vigilant flap monitoring.

An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Tissue Oximetry Versus Conventional Methods for Postoperative Monitoring of Autologous Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Tissue oximetry monitoring has shown superior outcomes to conventional monitoring methods for autologous breast reconstruction in retrospective studies with consecutive cohorts. A recent study used consecutive cohorts with tissue oximetry as the earlier cohort and found that tissue oximetry was nonsuperior. We hypothesize that improvement in microsurgical outcomes with institutional experience confounds the superiority of tissue oximetry demonstrated in prior studies. This study aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the outcomes of tissue oximetry monitoring compared with conventional monitoring.

METHODS

Relevant studies were found using PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science searches for keywords such as near-infrared spectroscopy or tissue oximetry and microsurgery. Studies included compared tissue oximetry and conventional monitoring in autologous breast reconstruction patients. Studies were excluded if they did not contain a comparison group. Random-effective models were used to analyze early returns to the operating room, the total number of partial or complete flap loss, and late fat necrosis.

RESULTS

Six hundred sixty-nine studies were identified; 3 retrospective cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1644 flaps were in the tissue oximetry cohort, and 1387 flaps were in the control cohort. One study contained tissue oximetry as the former cohort; 2 had tissue oximetry as the latter. Neither technique was superior for any measured outcomes. The estimated mean differences between tissue oximetry and conventional monitoring method were early returns, -0.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.52 to 0.410; P = 0.82); partial flap loss, -0.04 (95% CI, -0.86 to 0.79; P = 0.93); complete flap loss, -1.29 (95% CI, -3.45 to 0.87; P = 0.24); and late fat necrosis -0.02 (95% CI, -0.42 to, 0.39; P = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

In a systematic review and meta-analysis of mixed timeline retrospective cohort studies, tissue oximetry does not provide superior patient outcomes and shifts our current understanding of postoperative breast reconstruction monitoring. Prospective studies and randomized trials comparing monitoring methods need to be included in the existing literature.

Comparing tissue oximetry to doppler monitoring in 1367 consecutive breast free flaps

BACKGROUND

Retrospective studies evaluating tissue oximetry in a more recent cohort have shown superiority in flap outcomes. This study compares the use of tissue oximetry in a historical cohort to clinical observation and handheld doppler in a more recent cohort. We hypothesize that there is no benefit to using tissue oximetry.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on patients who underwent abdominal-based autologous breast reconstruction by five microsurgeons at an academic institution from 2009 to 2020. Method of postoperative flap monitoring was determined then operative details and complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

1367 flaps were reviewed; 740 flaps in 460 patients were monitored with clinical observation and tissue oximetry, and 627 flaps in 391 patients were monitored with clinical observation and handheld doppler. There were no statistical differences in ischemic (p = .59) or congestive complications (p = .41), flap salvage rates when exploring for venous or arterial compromise (p = .52), or early flap loss (p = .56). Although not significant, acute flap-related return to the operating room was lower in the doppler group (4.6%) compared to the oximetry group (6.1%; p = .22). Flaps monitored with tissue oximetry had a statistical increase in length of stay (4.8 ± 1.4 days vs. 3.8 ± 1.6 days; p ≤ .001). The rates of late partial flap loss and fat necrosis were significantly higher in the oximetry group (2.6%, 19/740 vs. 0.3%, 2/740; p = .04) and (18.2%, 135/740 vs. 13.6%, 85/627; p = .02), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no statistical benefit to the use of tissue oximetry compared to handheld doppler in flap monitoring with regards to flap outcomes.

Evaluating effects of primary defatting for flap thinning on the development of perfusion-related complications in free perforator flap reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Primary defatting is suggested as an effective and appealing technique for achieving flap thinning. There has been a long-standing concern regarding its potential adverse effects on flap perfusion, for which limited clinical evidence exists. This study aimed to investigate whether primary defatting negatively influences the outcomes of free perforator flap reconstruction.

METHODS

Patients who underwent upper or lower extremity reconstruction using free perforator flaps between 2002 and 2020 were investigated. They were categorized into two groups according to whether they underwent primary defatting. The association of primary defatting with the development of perfusion-related complications was evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 421 patients were included in the analysis. Perfusion-related complications developed in 61 (14.5%) cases, including 12 cases (2.9%) of total flap loss. In total, 302 patients underwent primary defatting and 119 did not. The patients who underwent primary defatting had a higher body mass index (BMI), lower rate of comorbidities, and smaller harvested flaps than the controls. Both groups had similar rates of perfusion-related complications (13.9% vs. 16.0%, p = .589), including total flap loss (3.0% vs. 2.5%, p = .799). In the multivariate analyses, primary defatting was not associated with the development of perfusion-related complications (p = .957). In the subgroup analyses, the rate of perfusion-related complications did not differ between the two groups regardless of the BMI (≥25 or <25 kg/m² ), comorbidities, and flap size (≥200, 100-200, or <100 cm² ).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary defatting does not appear to be associated with the development of perfusion-related complications in free perforator flap extremity reconstruction.

Overall Complication Rates of DIEP Flap Breast Reconstructions in Germany-A Multi-Center Analysis Based on the DGPRÄC Prospective National Online Registry for Microsurgical Breast Reconstructions

While autologous breast reconstruction has gained momentum over recent years, there is limited data on the structure and quality of care of microsurgical breast reconstruction in Germany. Using the breast reconstruction database established by the German Society of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (DGPRÄC), the presented study investigated the overall outcomes of deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstructions in Germany. Data of 3926 patients and 4577 DIEP flaps performed by 22 centers were included in this study. Demographics, patient characteristics, perioperative details and postoperative outcomes were accounted for. Centers performing < Ø 40 (low-volume (LV)) vs. ≥ Ø 40 (high-volume (HV)) annual DIEP flaps were analyzed separately. Overall, total and partial flap loss rates were as low as 2.0% and 1.1% respectively, and emergent vascular revision surgery was performed in 4.3% of cases. Revision surgery due to wound complications was conducted in 8.3% of all cases. Mean operative time and length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the HV group (LV: 385.82 min vs. HV: 287.14 min; LV: 9.04 (18.87) days vs. HV: 8.21 (5.04) days; both p < 0.05). The outcome and complication rates deduced from the national registry underline the high standard of microsurgical breast reconstruction on a national level in Germany.

Goal-directed fluid therapy in autologous breast reconstruction results in less fluid and more vasopressor administration without outcome compromise

OBJECTIVE

Aggressive or restricted perioperative fluid management has been shown to increase complications in patients undergoing microsurgery. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) aims to administer fluid, vasoactive agents, and inotropes according to each patient's hemodynamic indices. This study assesses GDFT impact on perioperative outcomes of autologous breast reconstruction (ABR) patients, as there remains a gap in management understanding. We hypothesize that GDFT will have lower fluid administration and equivocal outcomes compared to patients not on GDFT.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective review was conducted on ABR patients from January 2010-April 2017. An enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) using GDFT was implemented in April 2015. With GDFT, patients were administered intraoperative fluids and vasoactive agents according to hemodynamic indices. Patients prior to April 2015 were included in the pre-ERAS cohort. Primary outcomes included the amount and rate of fluid delivery, urine output (UOP), vasopressor administration, major (i.e., flap failure) and minor (i.e., seroma) complications, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Overall, 777 patients underwent ABR (ERAS: 312 and pre-ERAS: 465). ERAS patients received significantly less total fluid volume (ERAS median: 3750 mL [IQR: 3000-4500 mL]; pre-ERAS median: 5000 mL [IQR 4000-6400 mL]; and p<0.001), had lower UOP, were more likely to receive vasopressor agents (47% vs 35% and p<0.001), and had lower LOS (ERAS: 4 days [4-5]; pre-ERAS: 5 [4-6]; and p<0.001) as compared to pre-ERAS patients. Complications did not differ between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

GDFT, as part of ERAS, and the prudent use of vasopressors were found to be safe and did not increase morbidity in ABR patients. GDFT provides individualized perioperative care to the ABR patient.

Detailed analysis of the impact of surgeon and hospital volume in microsurgical breast reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Prior investigations of microsurgical breast reconstruction have not distinguished the effects of surgeon versus hospital volume and failed to address the effect of patient clustering. Our data-driven analysis aims to determine the impacts of surgeon and hospital volume on outcomes of microsurgical breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) data from 2008 to 2011 was analyzed for patients who underwent microsurgical breast reconstruction. Volume-outcome relationships were analyzed with restricted cubic spline analysis. A multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to account for patient clustering effect.

RESULTS

A total of 5,404 NIS patients met inclusion criteria. High-volume (HV) surgeons had a 59% decrease in the risk of inpatient complications, which became non-significant after clustering correction. For HV hospitals, there was a 47% decrease in the risk of inpatient complications (odds ratio = 0.53; 95% confidence intervals 0.30, 0.91; p = 0.021) that was statistically significant with the clustering adjustment. Neither the volume-cost relationship for surgeons nor hospitals remained statistically significant after accounting for clustering.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital volume plays a significant impact on outcomes in microsurgical breast reconstruction, while surgeon volume has comparatively not shown to be similarly impactful. The complexity of care related to microsurgical breast reconstruction warrants equally complex and engineered health systems.